Fathers Primo notandū non debere aduersarios petere vt ostendamus in scripturis aut Patribus nomē septenarij Sacramētorum nā nec ipsi possunt ostendere nomē Binarij vel ternarij c. Bellar. l. 2. de effect Sacr. c. 24. yet honest Sir Humfrey translates out of the Latin quoted in his owne margent the number of seuen for the name of the number of seuen repeating the same twise for fayling and so daceiues his ignorant reader persuading him there by that euen by Bellarmins confession the number of the seuen Sacraments is not to be found either in scriptures or Fathers whereas neuerthelesse Bellarmin saith no such thing but onelie that the name of the foresaid number is not to be required in that manner supposing that the substance of a thing is oftentimes found both in scriptures and Fathers and yet not the name it selfe as appeares in the worde Trinitie of persons and in the name of the number of two Sacraments neither of which is extant in scriptures Secondlie Bellarmin is corrupted in his booke of Extreme Vnction cap. 2. Non omnes cōueniunt an cum Apostoli vngebant olto infirmos Marci 6. curabant illa fuerit vnctio sacramentalis an solū fuerit figura quaedam c. Bellar. lib. de Sacr. Extrem Vnct. c. 2. Where the false knight makes his reader beleeue that Bellarmin was one of those who disagreed from the doctrine of other diuines in the doctrine of the fiue Sacraments which he and his companions denie to be truelie and properlie Sacraments and yet the Cardinall onelie affirmes with some other authours that that vnction which the Apostles vsed aboute the sick and restored them to health the 6. of S. Marke was not the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction but rather a figure or obumbration of it Which as you see is a farre different matter from the deniall of Extreme Vnction as it is vsed in the Church to be properlie a Sacrament or one of the fiue reiected by the pretensiue reformed Congregations Thirdlie the knight corrupteth Bellarmin whome he cites in the nynth chapter of his first booke of the Sacraments where he peruertes both the translation of the wordes and sense The wordes in that he Englisheth these non est ita notum it is not so certaine whereas he ought to haue translated it is not so knowne The sense he corrupteth in that he persuades his reader that Bellarmin confesseth that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution from christ immediatelie whereas he speakes not a worde of the institurion but affirmes onelie that the sacred things which the Sacraments signifie are three iustifying grace the passiō of Christ and eternall life all which that Baptisme and Eucharrst doe fignifie saith he res notissima est it is most notorious de alijs Sacramentis non est ita notum of the rest of the Sacraments it is not so notorious or knowne Yet further adding that it is certaine that euen these fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect signifie all those three things at the least implicitlie But to saie that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution immediatelie from Christ neuer entred in to Bellarmins thoughts tamen certum est saltem implicite ea omnia significare c. Bellar. loco cit And so if the knight had dealt playnelie and sincerelie in the citation of that place of the Cardinall he could haue found nothing for his purpose but rather the contrarie Furthermore Sir Humfrey also corrupteth vasquez most shamefullie in the 3. parte d. 2. cap. 5. n. 3. de Sacram. Matr. Where he impudentlie belyeth him affirming that Vasquez knewe well that neither moderne diuines nor auncient Fathers did conclude Matrimonie for a true Sacrament of the Church And yet the knight could not be ignorant that the same authour professedlie defendes the same to be trulie and properlie a Sacrament in the third chapter of the verie same disputation which he himselfe cites and in his 4. chap. Vasquez proueth it by the testimonies of diuers Fathers putting for parte of the title of the same chap. that the Vasquez de Mat. definition of the Church touching the truth of this Sacrament had foundation in the testimonies of the Fathers and who will please to read vasquez will finde it so In so much that Sir Humfrey in this particular is wholelie inexcusable especiallie considering that out of the place cited nothing can possiblie be collected or inferred wherebie it may in anie sorte be imagined that vasquez euer dreamed that either auncient Fathers or moderne diuines excepting durand and perhaps the Master of Sentences of whome he speakes doubtfullie not daring to affirme him absolutelie to haue beene of the same opinion with Durand as in truth he is not did conclude matrimonie not to be a true and proper Sacrament but onelie affirmes that none of the places which diuines alledge out of S. Augustin to proue the truth and propertie of that Sacrament conuince the same in the sense in which saith Vasquez we now dispute Which imagination of Vasquez tho' it were true as in my iudgement apparentlie it is not yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent in disprouing the septenarie number of Sacraments Especiallie supposing as the same Vasquez affirmes Cō Carth. 4. that the fourth Councell of Carthage in which S. Augustin was present as a great member of the same makes mētion of the Benediction of the Preist vsed in mariage as in a holie and sacred thing Graunt I say that Vasquez opinion were true yet would it not serue the knights turne either for the poofe of his intent or for the excuse of his false and craftie dealing Next after Vasquez I will put Suarez althou ' according to the order of Sir Humfrey he is the first man he belies in this Poragraph in 3. part d. 12. sec 1. where he charges him to saye that the councell of Florence did insinuate the number of 7. Sacraments Propter quod tandem haec veritas definita est in Con. Flor. in decreto Eugenij quā Graeci Armeni facile cum Latinis suceperūt Suar. loc cit and the councell of Trent did expresselie decree it for an article of faith yet suarez sayes in plaine termes that the same was defyned in the councell of Florence So that here is false dealing with suarez and with the truth to make the point of the septenarie number of Sacraments seeme newe as ther is also in the wordes following in which the same Sir Humfrey affirmes that the Romanists relie wholely vpon the Tridentine councell Ambrose Austin Chrysostome and Bede be impertinently alleged For they none of them denie that the Sacraments are no more nor lesse then seuen And of S. Isidore it is falsely affirmed by Sir Humfrey that he accounteth but of 3. Sacraments for altho' in the place quoted by him he speakes onely of three which yet is more then the knight will
which they ar not able to vnderstand Spirituales ergo siue qui presunt siue qui obtemperant spiritualiter iudicant non de spiritualibus cogitationibus quae latent in firmamento Non enim oportet de sublimi authoritate iudicare neque etiam de ipso libro tuo etiam si quid ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ei nostrum intellectū certumque habemus etiam quod clausum est aspectibus nostris recte veraciterque dictum esse Sic enim homo licet iam spiritualis ' renouatus in agnitionem Dei secundum imaginem eius qui creauit eum factor tamen legis debet esse non index These ar the wordes of S. Augustin syncerely rehearsed in which as anie vnderstander of latin may easily perceiue ther is nothing founde in fauor of Sir Humfreys tenet in the place aboue cited viz that scripiure is the sole iudge of controuersies interpreter of it selfe but rather is ther some thing expressely repugnant to an other position of his congregation defending that scriptures ar easie to be vnderstanded or interpreted onely by conferring one place with an other the contrarie of which neuertelesse is plainely insinuated by those wordes of S. Augustin certumque habemus etiam quod clausum est aspectibus nostris c. And we ar eertaine euen that which is shutte from our eyes is ritely truely spoken And yet our corrupt aduersarie hath corruptedly interrupted them conioyning the first parte to the last omitting the verie harte of the sentence for the latin wordes spiritualibus cogitationibus putting in English spiritual knowledge for spiritual cogitateons like wise inserting by a parentesis this his owne glosse vpon the worde firmament expounding it of the scriptures them selues I knowe not by what other rule or authorite then by the dictamen of his owne priuate or familiar spirit all which particulars I remit to the censure of the iudicious reader And by occasion of this passage I aduertise the reader that wheras the author for the greater credit of his worke as it were to limme it with the authoritie of that aureous Doctor S. Augustin hath cyted him in his by-way alone at the leaste 60. seueral tymes yet hauing diligently viewed and discussed the places as they stāde in the tomes I indoubtedly assure him that of those 60 sentences there ar not 6. to the purpose for which they ar alledged and yet those 6. either such as partely by diuers Romanists in their seueral worke and partely by my selfe in this my censure haue sundrie tyme receiued their anser the rest of the total number being some of quyte impertinent others neither for our aduersauersarie nor against the Romanists others plainely against him and for the Romanists especially those which proue the apparent and conspicuous visitabilitie of the Catholique Church others finally ar not syncerily rehearsed but mangled cropt or curtald with abuse of the author and reader S. Chrisostome like wise and S. Ambrose haue their meaning detorted by the knight in the same section the one in his 13. homilie vpon Genesis in his 7. homilie vpon the first epistle to the Thesalonians the other in his 8. sermon vpon the 118. psal for S. Chrisostome onely treates in those places of twoe particular cases to wit in the Genesis he argueth against some whoe denyed the terrestriall Paradise and vpon the foresaid Epistle of saint Paule he reprehendes some others who were of opiniō that the soule is a particle of the diuine nature And touching these two particular points S. Chrysostome affirmes that the sacred scripture expondes it selfe and suffers not the reader to erre but he said not that the scripture in all other places and in all other matters doth soe interpret it selfe as Sir Humfrey falsely alledgeth Now S. Ambrose saying that the dore shall be opened vnto him who diligētly examēs the difficult and obscure passages of scripture by no other but by the worde of God he doth not there meane by the worde of God the scriptures them selues but the diuine word that is Christ our sauior the second person in Trinitie and therfore he addes to the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey de quo legisti in Apocalipsi quod Agnus librum signatam aperuit of which thou haest read in the Apocalips that the lambe opened the sealed booke which laste wordes of S. Ambrose because the knight perceiued that by their plaine explication of the former they discouered the whole sentence to be nothing for his purpose he deceitfull smunthered and left them vnrehearsed by which his palpable and grosse abuse of these two graue and ancient authors doth euidently appeare An much according to this fashion he proceeds with Pope Clement whome he cites in the same place and for the same purpose Whoe neuerthelesse is soe repugnant to the tenet of the nouellists in making the sole scripture interpreter of it selfe in all cases that he expressely teaches that we must not according to our owne sense but secundum traditionem patris according to the tradition of the Father that is either according as the tradition of the Pope him selfe as deliuerer of the sense of scriptures vnto vs or secundum traditionem Patris that is according to the tradition of the ancient Fathers and therfore he addes afterwardes ideo oportet ab eo intelligentiam discere scripturam qui eum a maioribus secundum veritatem sibi traditam reseruauit vt ipse possit ea quae recte suscepit cempetenter asserere That is And therfore we ought to learne the intelligence or vnderstanding of scriptures of him whoe reserued it to him selfe according to the trueth deliuered vnto him by his ancetors to the end he might cōpetently assert those things which he ritely receiued But Sir Humfrey conceiled these wordes as alsoe the greater parte of the period out of which he cited those wordes he alledges yet ioined vnto them the rest of those which he rehearseth not obstanding they ar parte of an other clause alsoe adding the worde seeing which neither is in the authors text nor agrees with his sense and meaning which is not that the scripture alone is an intyre and firme rule of faith but the scripture expounded according to the sense receiued from the ancients as immediately before he affirmed But vaine Sir Humfrey was soe desirous to seeme to his reader to haue a Pope for an a better of his position that he chused rather to prostitute his owne honestie in the euill vse he made of his authoritie then seeme to wāt the testiminie of soe renowned a personage And yet is the knight soe farre from obtaining his purpose that if the wordes were not soe manie that they can not with conueniencie be intyrely related they them selues would make it apparent how much the author of them is abused by the false relater The supplye of which I remit to the more diligent reader as tyme leasure shall giue him occasion But I confesse
conuincement of Luther Pag. 6. And the marginall note of that place is yet more false then the text saying that the aduersaries of Luther proued the doctrine of Indulgences by common reasons onely And as for Eckius I haue read his whole treatise of Indulgences so I ame sure he foundeth them not vpon the Popes autheritie either onelie or cheefelie but principallie vpon scripture for so he sayth page 313. Indulgentiarum figurae fuerunt Iubilei in veteri Testamento De his sumus contenti eo quod habeamus solidum S. Paulâ— fundamentum ne credamur diligentiores in lucrosa Porro c. 2. Cor. 2. And to the sense of these authors may be reduced that which Cunerus sayth of the doubtfull manner of writing of some Catholike authors of Indulgences if the place be sincerely related which a man may iustely suspect especially for that the knight hath it out of Chamier at second hand And in deed the truth is if that authors sentence had not ben violentlie abrupted before the end of the same period which he deliuered with one breath it would haue plainelie declared that there is nothing for Sir Humfreyes purpose of prouing that neither Christ nor the Primatiue Fathers as he speaketh euer knewe or exercised such pardons as are now dayly practised in the Church of Rome For the wordes omitted are those Cunerus declam Cum in clauibus Ecclesiae symbolo Apostolico clarissime fundatae deprehendantur That is since that Indulgences are most clearely discouered to be founded in the Apostolicall symbole or Creed in the power of the keyes of the Church c. And so now we see that those testimonies doe not proue want of antiquitie or consent in either scripture Fathers or schoolemen for the doctrine of Indulgences themselues but onelie at the most in some accessorie points of that Controuersie yet not one of them prouing anie such want in the maine of the question aboue declared no more then he should be thought to proue want of antiquitie vniuersallitie in the doctrine of three persons one God who should affirme the same not to be in expresse termes contayned in the scripture Fathers schoolemen iuste in that manner in which the Church beleeueth defendeth it And yet graunting neuerthelesse that it is truelie contained in the same scripture in an other equiualent manner or inexpresselie As also the same doth yet more plainelie appeare euen by those same wordes which Sir Humfrey cites here out of Alfonsus which altho' they be not sincerelie related by him as leauing out that which most conduceth to the explication of that authours true meaning to wit that who but an heretike can denie transubstantiation the procession of the holie Gost Purgatorie because they are not mentioned by auncient authors sub his nominibus by these names or wordes And after what maruell therefore is it if it happened in this sorte of Indulgence that saith Castro there be not mention made of them in the auncients By which wordes it is plaine this author speakes not absolutelie of the substance of Indulgences or of the authoritie to graunte them which indeede is the cheefe question of Controuersie in this place of which he makes no doubt but that it is sufficientlie contayned in scripture Fathers altho' as he saith minus expresse lesse expresselie But he onelie speakes of the name as his wordes now related doe testifie or at the most of the antiquitie of their coÌ„mon vse which not withstanding it is no matter of faith yet doth he shewe it not to be so new as the sectaries of our times will haue it therefore he addes by way of conclusion Quod non est tam recens Indulgentiarum vsus quantum isti haeretici meaning the Lutherans exprobrant nam apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur earum vsus vt ex stationibus Romaefrequentissimis colligi vtcumque potest Et de Beato Gregorio huius nominis primo fertur quod aliquas suotempore concesserit And in the same tenor of wordes he adioyneth that et si pro Indulgentiaram approbatione sacrae scripturae apertum testimonium desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam Ecclesiae Catholicae vsus à multis annorum saeculis receptus tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur c. By all which it is euident that nothing can be proued by the wordes of Alfonsus against the substance of Ecclesiasticall Indulgences nor contrarie to the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Roman doctrine in that point but rather Sir Humfrey his brothers are manifestlie conuicted of heresie for contemning the same Now Maior in 4. d. 2. q. 2. is impertinentlie alledged for he onelie affirmes that it 's harde to founde authenticallie in scripture iuste that manner of Indulgence which is vsed at this day in the Church that some of the auncient Fathers made no mention thereof which the Romanists doe not denie for they saye difficilia quae pulchra And so that which is hardelie founded is truelie founded Yet the power vse of Indulgences euen as they are now practised the same Maior defendes as well as other moderne diuines yea deduceth the vse of them from S. Gregorie the great thus this author is excused the citer reprooued Touching Siluester Prieras altho' I cannot haue that same worke of his which Sir Humfrey cites if anie such be extant now in the world yet I haue viewed the treatise of Indulgences which he hath in his summe there I finde that he doth not saie all that with which our aduersarie doth charge him nay nor scarce halfe so much for he neither excludes scripture from the grounde of Indulgences 2. Cor. 2. but expresselie cites the same place of S. Paule for them which others cite altho' it be with a licet at the and. And much lesse doth he affirme that the authority of the Church of Rome the Popes is greater then the authoritie of the scripture which proposition if he had vttered defended obstinatelie in my opinion he had deserued the fygot almost as well as his aduersarie Martin but I persuade my selfe the discretion of Prieras was greater then so And in the same manner I vehementlie suspect our aduersaries hath vsed some of his Gipsian sleights in the citation of the place he quoteth But yet is meaning is onely that Indulgences that is the present vse of them is not manifestlie declared vnto vs by scripture Fathers as his wordes cited here in the margen insinuate absolutelie graunting both the power practise of them IndulgeÌ„tia nobis per scripturaÌ„ minime innotuit licet inducatur illud 2. Cor. 2. Si quid donaui vobis sed nec per dicta antiquoruÌ„ doctorum sed modernorum Dicitur enim Gregorius indulgentiam septennem in stationibê° Rome posuisse Et quia Ecclesia hoc facit seruat credendum est ita
is no lesse then a plaine leasing Besides these vntrueths which I haue now rehearsed he hath diuerse very idle positions either false or friuolous as for example that the power of binding and loosing depends vpon Purgatory that by defect of the Priests intention the worshipper of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament may commit flat Idolatry and the like these because they are left by him vnproued I will also leaue them vnrefuted till such time as I shall see his proofes produced and in the meane time I condemne this whole section as containing matter both idle false calumnious and full of inuectiue bitternesse and puritannicall spleene against the Romanists accusing them that they turne the necks of Scriptures cleane about that it is a common practice of their Church of Rome to make greater price of victory then verity other such matter as is vnworthy to be published either by printe or pen. THE V. PERIOD THE knight in his sixt section promiseth to refute that which he tearmeth the Common practice of his aduersaries in their refusall of reformation because saith he we cannot assigne the precise time when errours came in This I confesse is a matter of importance and if Sir Humfrey can performe his promise he will in parte recouer the credit which he hath formerly lost if not his honour must still lye in the dust Now to performe his promise he must know that it is not sufficient for him his partners to assigne the time and persons when and by whom those points of doctrine which they hould to be erroneously maintained in the Roman Church were first broached but they must also by some meanes or other conuince them to be errours indeede And as long as Sr Humfrey failes in the demonstratiō of either of these it is manifest he doth not performe his worde He saith indeede very confidētly in the beginning of this section that they meaning as I suppose himselfe and his companions in sect are all eye-witnesses that the errours of the Romā Church are this daye so notorious that a very child may perceaue thē but what is this to the purpose this is but a friuolous repetition of their owne bare wordes this is no lawfull proofe among aduersaries this is no demonstration it is not this Romane Catholiks are bound to stand too this is no reasonable satisfaction for vs or any other be he neuer so indifferent We must be conuinced of errours by Scriptures by consent of auncient Fathers by plaine definitions of approoued Councels And till you Sir Humfrey or some of your consorts make this point cleare we acknowledge no errours in our Church and by consequence no necessity of reformation in that nature as your discourse in this section doth falsely suppose Moreouer touching the assignation of time persons when and by whom the pretended errours of the Roman Church had their beginning it is apparant the knight is in a great errour in that he persuadeth himselfe that the Romanists exact of the reformers to assigne the time and persons when and by whom such errours as they attribut to their Church were first broached For the Romanists do not stand precisely vpon assignation of the very first time and persons or the very first Authours of those supposed errours no they put no such rigorous taske vpon the reformers but onely oblige them to shewe when they were first so notorious and apparent in the world as both they their authours were condemned in any authenticall Councell or assembly and this is that onely which the Catholikes demaund of their aduersaries and not that which Sir Humfrey imagineth and therefore whatsoeuer he produceth in this section for the confirmation of his intent in that particular proceedeth vpon false supposition and consequently proueth nothing but his owne ignorance That which is a thing not onely proper to Sir Humfrey in diuerse places of his booke but also so generally incident to the rest of his conreformers as in reading their workes I haue often lamented their case to see them so labour in vaine like hounds spending vpon a false sent And surely nothing els but the foresaid false supposition was the cause why Sir Humfrey proceeded in this point in so farre a different manner as he doth from the rest of his fellowes He not taking vpon him as they ordinarily doe tho' without effect to assigne the time when those imagined errours first began and who were the first authours of the same but as it were supposing that to be impossible or els aduerticeing the ill successe which his fellow sectaries haue had in prosectuing their waye fell vpon a quite contrary course indeauouring to shewe a distinction and difference betwixt the heresies of the Arians Pelagians and Donatists and the errours which he supposeth to be in the Roman Church graunting that those heresies being such as did saith he indaunger the foundation and openly disturbed the Church might easely be discouered adding that their first authours de facto were obserued and the times knowne place pointed at But the chāge of the Romanists doctrine saith he was a secret Apostasie scarcely to be knowne or discouered condemning also that for an impertinent demaunde which the Catholikes vsually require of the reformers to wit that they shewe the first time and produce the first authours of the supposed Romish errours by this shewing himselfe very desirous to rid his handes of so hard a taske as he hath vndertaken as doth plainely appeare by those examples and similitudes which he vseth for that purpose tho' not very well applied And now this being the sense of the first parte of this section let vs briefely examine how soundly he proueth his intent Matth. 13.24 In the parable of the sower saith he Christ himselfe giues a full answer to those impertinent dedemaunds he telleth vs that after the good seede was sowen the enemy sowed tares when men were a sleepe Thus he answereth to the impertinent question of the Romaniste as he tearmeth it But good Sir Humfrey if the question be impertinent why doe you answer to it why doe not you rather passe it with silence then spend your breath about it but it seemes you will needes answer yea and father your answer vpon our Sauiour as if Christ himselfe had answered in the words cited to the same question which you say the Romanists demaund of you Fy what application of Scripture is this are you a master in Israell and yet ignorant that our Sauiour vsed that Parable to another purpose did not our Sauiour meane by the enemy the Deuill by the tares vices and by the field the soule of man is not this a common exposition of interpreters or if you will needes haue it vnderstood of errours in doctrine and of the sower of them in the field of the Church of which we know there are good store in your congregation yet can the parable of our Sauiour auayle your purpose nothing at all
the Osseni which I haue shewed all readie out of S. Epiphanius to haue beene of a farre different nature notwithstanding out aduersarie doth indeuoure falselie to persuade the same to his simple reader neither was this as the knight vntruelie affirmes to introduce seruice in a strange language but rather in the most knowne in the world that in which most nations agree and so this may serue to demonstrate that the Romanists deriue not this parte of their Pedagane frō auncient heretikes as our aduersarie doth calumniate but frō the practise of the most aūcient Church at the least in the west partes of the world to wit the Apostolicall Church And heare we see also that Sir Humfrey in steede of deriuing the Pedegree of the Roman faith from Iewes and heretikes he deriues his owne from the Father of lyes that is from the abuse of both scriptures and auncient Fathers of the Catholike Church In the next braunch of the Pedegree he plaplaceth transsubstantiation going about to proue that it was the doctrine or at least the practise of certaine heretikes named Helcesaitae who faigned a two fould Christ as saith Sir Humfrey the Masse Preists doe who admit one bodie with all his dimentions and properties in heauen and other in the Sacrament which hath noe properties of a true bodie Thus Sir Humfrey talkes most absurdely ignorantly and falsely Ignorantly for that according to this discourse he houldes the want of locall dimensions or properties of a bodie sufficient to cause an absolute indiuiduall sustantiall diuersitie in it and to distinguish it really from it selfe and so to make it an other distinct bodie which is so voyde of reason that if he had not bene grossely ignorant in Philosophie haue he would neuer vttered such doctrine vnworthie of other confutation them a schoole stampe or hisse He speake also falsely first in that he either affirmes or supposes Preists to admit that Christs bodie in the Sacrament is without anie properties of a true bodie For they all contrarily teach and beleeue that as Christs bodie in the Sacrament is the same which is in heauen so hath it all the same properties excepting locall extension Secondly he speakes falselie in that he Fathereth that on Preists which none of them either thought or tought and so makes them guiltie if the Helcesaits heresie onelie for that which he hath forged in his owne phantasticall braine Also abusing the authority of learned Theodoret in misaplying his words in which he vtters not anie iot or title by which it can be gathered that these heretikes meant of Christ in the Sacrament when they faigned a double Christ but of two visible Christs the one aboue I knowe not where and the other belowe in the world or I knowne not where els adding that the supernall Christ did in former times liue in manie but at being descended from aboue And more they sayde he passed into other bodies other such like fabulous stuffe they haue of Christ which neuer enterd into the cogitations of any people of learning and iudgement and therefore it is as great dotage in Sir Humfrey to impose this vpon Catholike Roman Preists as it was in the authour to inuentit as will yet more plainely appeare by the formall words of Theodoret which here I put in the margin Christum autem non vnū dicunt Helcesaitae sed hūc quidem infernè illum verò supernè eum olim in multis habitasse postremò autem descēdisse Iesum autē aliquando ex Deo esse dixit Elxai aliquādo vocat spiritū quandoque autem Virginem matrem habuisse in alijs autem scriptis ne hoc quidē Rursus autem eum etiam dicit transire in alia corpora in vnoquoque tempore diuerse ostendi Theodor. heret fab to 2. lib. 2. pag. 380. And the like absurditie Sir Humfrey commits in that which immediatly followees attributing the doctrine of transsubstantiation to one Marke an heretike because forsooth he by some kinde of inchaunting inuocation ouer the Sacramentall cuppe caused the wine to appeare like bloud which sacrilegious example and practise of Marcus what force it can haue to proue the Romanists to be of that fellowes Pedegree let any indifferent man be iudge And moreouer to take away all doubt and assure himselfe the more let the reader but consider what S. Irenaeus in the same place cited by Sir Humfrey videlicet libr. 1. cap. 9. saith of that Marcus I doubt not but he will see most clearely how egregiously our aduersarie abuseth the Romanists in this matter Marcus saith S. Irenaeus pro calice vino mixto fingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermonem inuocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit vt putetur ea gratia ab ijs qui sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare per inuocationem eius valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo vt in illos stillet quae per magum hunc vocatur gratia By which words let the reader if he vnderstand Latin iudge how voyde of grace is he who so shamelesselie applies this to the Consecration of the Eucharist by Preists of the Roman Church And yet the preposterous knight not being content to haue spoken so irreasonably yet further addes that the authours of transsubstantiation were those disciples that beleaued the the grosse carnall eating of Christs Flesh. From whence he would deduce that the Romanists descend from the Iudaicall Capharnaits in this point But this is a most grosse and ridiculous conceipt of him to imagin that they can be successours to such as refused expressely and absolutely to beleeue that same which they hould for a matter of faith tho' not in the same grosse manner which those incredulous disciples of Christ did apprehend and as you also not like reformers but deformers out of the madnesse of your noddles grossely conceiue them to doe but in a much more spirituall manner and yet truely really and substantially and not onely in spirit as your priuate spirits would haue it Which if it were so onely it were not the true Sacrament which necessarily requires to containe really and not by faith onely that which it represēts but it were onely a meere shadowe or figure of a Sacrament as the sacrifice of Melchisedech the manna and bread of Proposition were signes and figures of the Sacrament of the holie Eucharist as not containing but onely representing the body and blōde there contained And supposing that Sir Humfrey himselfe absolutely denies the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and supposing also that as S. Iohn doth testifie the Capharnaits did also refuse to beleeue the same this fable of Sir Humfrey mutat o nomine may much more aptely and truely be verified of him and his companions I will not say then of the Romanists but euen then of the Capharnaits themselues in regarde the Capharnaites as farre as can be gathered by the
fathers of the primatiue Church so the knight by which discourse you may easilie perceiue euen by his owne wordes and the if which he maketh that all which he hath hitherto said hath no greater warrant then his owne suretie which although his authoritie and credit were farre greater then either we haue found it to be or it can be in it selfe yet were it not safe for anie man to relie vpon it but rather to hould it for verie vncertaine and fayleable Especiallie considering that all which he hath produced in proofe of the same are either meere trifles or at the most verie poore arguments grounded vpon false suppositions yea and vpon plaine vntrueths falsifications and corruptions both of scripture and fathers and so partlie through ignorance and partlie through malice he hath shewed himselfe a most partiall and false Herold And now altho' this might suffice for the censure of the section insuing because it pertaineth to the same subiect yet least the knigth should grūble I will a forde it a Period a parte THE VII PERIOD IN his eight section therefore Sir Humfrey promiseth to produce testimonies of his aduersaries touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Protestant faith in generall So he proceedeth in the title To which he addeth by way of asseueration that if the Roman Church doth not confesse that the reformers are both in the more certaine and Safer waye in the Protestant Church I will saith he neither refuse the name nor the punishment due to heresie Heere we see the knight is as free in his promises as euer he was let vs therefore examen how he performeth them for if he doth not he cannot escape either the name of an heretike or at the least the desert of punishment itselfe euen in this mortall life Hee beginneth thus He that shall question vs where our Church was before Luther let him looke back to the Primatiue Church nay let him but looke into the bosome of the present Roman Church and he shall finde that if euer antiquitie and vniuersallitie were markes of the true Church of right and necessitie they must belong to ours So Sir Humfrey In which wordes as it were by way of generall assertion he briefelie declareth the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his Church to be found both in the Primatiue Church and also in the present Roman Church in which assertion there being two partes and that no small ones the first he endeauoureth to proue by shewing a conformitie betwene the doctrine of the Church of England with that of the Primatiue Church and descending to particulars he tells vs that his Church teacheth and beleeueth the same three Creedes which were instituted by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primatiue Church and not created by Luther as also two of the seauen Sacraments which were saith he by the confession of our aduersaries instituted by Christ The same he affirmeth of 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture which he saith were vniuersallie receiued in all ages Likewise of the seuen generall Councells he affirmeth that foure of them were ratified by the Cannons of the Church of England and confirmed by act of parliament and thus he runneth through the points of doctrine and faith in which they and we agree adding to them the confession of his aduersaries And yet in all his large rehearsall of points of faith he maketh no mention of eyther those in which the Romanists and reformers disagree nor of those new articles of the English Creede which dissent from the doctrine of the Primatiue Church and which indeede are those that make the reformers guiltie of heresie as its the doctrine of Iustification by faith onelie the deniall of the reall presence and such like But craftilie leauing them out as if they were not to the purpose he treateth whereas in trueth by reason of these new errours obstinatelie defended by them there can be no vniuersalitie nor antiquitie in their Church notwithstanding they had neuer so great conformitie both to the auncient primatiue and moderne Roman Church in all the rest of their beleefe Especiallie supposing that anie one errour in matter of faith obstinatelie defended is sufficient to take away all true antiquitie and vniuersallitie of anie Church or congregation whatsoeuer as euen the reformers themselues as I suppose cannot denie for that as the scripture affirmeth that he who offends in one thing is made guiltie of all the rest so he that in one onelie poynt of faith houldeth contrarie to the most vniuersall and auncient Church maketh himselfe presentlie guiltie of want or defect both of vniuersalitie and antiquitie in his beleefe For as Saint Nazianzene saith to this purpose in his 37. oration towards the end the articles of faith are like to a gould chaine from which if you take away anie one link as Saint Ambrose saith Ad cap. 9. Lucae lib. 6. in fine you take away your saluation vnum horum saith he si detraxeris tetraxisti salutem tuam And so we see that the knight by reason he omitteth in his discourse that part vpon which the verie medium of his argument chiefelie or at the least greatelie depended his proofe of antiquitie and vniuersality in his Church falleth to the groūd But besides this defect he fayleth also in that he saith he beleeueth the three Creedes instituted by the Apostles and Primatiue Fathers of the Church For either he meanes that those three Creedes do sufficientlie conteyne all that he is bound to beleeue or no. If the first he meaneth then what will become of his solifidian iustification and of the 39. articles of the English faith the greater parte of which is not to be found in those Creedes If he meanes the second then doth he ill in leauing those particulars out in the rehearsall of his faith Nay more then this for if matters were well examined I doubt not but the knight notwithstanding the protestatiō of his faith of the three Creeds yet he would be founde holting in the true generally receiued or Catholike sēse of diuers of the same as that of the perpetuall virginity of the mother of God in that of the descēt of Christ in to hell of the Catholike Church the cōmunion of Saincts remission of sinnes and the like I say of the doctrine of the 4. first Generall Councels and of the Sacraments in which particulars our aduersaries vnderpresēce of reformatiō maintaine diuers deformed errours specified and confuted by diuines of the Roman Church Moreouer the knight is also defectiue in the proofe of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith and doth egregiously equiuocate in that he saith that two of the Sacraments which the Church of Rome houldeth are professed by the reformers and confessed by their aduersaries to haue beene instituted by Christ not broached by Luther This I say is equiuocall and doth not prooue his intent for although it neither is nor can be denied but ingenuously confessed by the Roman Church that there are two
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
that nature And now of this and the rest of the testimonies which haue beene discussed in this paragraffe which if it had not beene for the satisfaction of the common people which may easily be deluded by them I would neuer haue prosecuted so largely as containinge noething worthie of a scholers labour it may I say be easily collected and perceiued how fondly he concludeth his whole discourse as if he had made it appeare that the reformed faith touching the spirituall and sacramentall participation of Christs bodie had beene generally beleeued and taugh both in the former and later ages and as if the doctrine of transsubstantiation had noe vnity among the Romish authours nor vniuersalitie among the auncient Fathers nor certainety in the scriptures This I say is a most impudent vaunt of the bragadocho knight for that it hath beene already made manifest by the same testimonies which he produceth against the Roman doctrine that not onely the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the same in those two points stands firme and sound but that there is no antiquitie or vniuersalitie at all to be found in the doctrine of the reformed Churhes in those particulars to say nothing of other points of theit deformed faith and so this shall suffice for the censure of this paragraffe which as it is larger in wordes then the former so deserueth it a larger sentence of condemnation as conteining noething more but a greater multitude of diuerse sorts of ill proceeding The third paragraffe is of priuate Masse in which for the honour as I suppose which he beareth towards the mother Church he placeth her definition in the first ranke and then afterwardes the article of his owne Church The decree of the councell of Trent ses 22. can 8. is this If ame shall say that Masses in which the Priest alone doth communicate are vnlawfull and therefore ought to be abrogared let him be accursed but the article of the reformed Church will not haue it so but protesteth that priuate Masses that is the receauing of the Eucharist by the Priest alone with out a competent number of communicants is contrarie to te institution of Christ and the practise of the primatiue Church Thus the knight setteth downe the matter of disputatiō thus he placeth the two armies in battle aray with their contrarie collours one confronting the other And this speciall difference I note in them that the one armie consists of milites veterani that is of ould Roman souldiers gathered out of the whole Roman Empire and Christian world the other of fresh men fetched from a corner of the world that is from Ireland Loe heere the armies set in order now let vs see who carries away the victorie You may perceiue by Sir Humfreys relation that the Councell speaketh with authoritie it intimateth those aged Synods of the primatiue Church it doth so fulminate that it maketh the reformed brothers tremble to heere it Naye it seemes it so daunteth the valiant knight that he found no other refuge then to flie to Irelād for an article of his faith A man would rather haue expected that to confront the Councell of Trent and it definition Sir Humfrey would haue had recourse to the Councell of Gapp or of Dort or to some consistorie assemblie of Geneua or to an Acte of an English Parleament But alas the poore Caualier found so small hope of assistance in these that he was constrained to saile to Ireland for an Irish article as he himselfe doth tearme it True it is the Irish article directlie opposeth the definition of the Councell but by what authority I know not yet certaine it is that in the Coūcell of Trent there were assembled by themselues or their legates or at the least conuented all the Princes both of the ould and newe Religion and Prelates of the Christian world as the Bull of indiction and the oration had in the last session most plainelie testifie And so the authoritie of this Synod euen in common sense must needes be verie great but the authoritie of the articles which our knight opposeth to the Councell what authoritie they had is yet vnknowne neither could they possible haue anie authoritie of greate moment for that they were gathered onelie out of a verie small corner of the Christian world and farre inferiour in vertue learning and other naturall parts to the most greate graue and venerable number of the members of the foresaid Synod Wherefore let the indifferēt reader iudge whether of these two armies is to be followed The authours of the article protest that priuate Masse is contrarie to the institution of Christ and the practice of the Church and hence the knight inferreth that it is vnlawfull and therefore to be abrogated and farther that the Councell of Trent by cursing those who hould that masses in which the Priest alone doth comunicate are vnlawfull and ought to be abrogated doth cursse Christ that ordeined it and God that commaunded vs to obserue it Heere you see the knight talketh with as greate authoritie as if he were the greatest graduate either in Oxford or Cambridge neuerthelesse he must giue him leaue who is no graduate to let him knowe that he fayleth mightilie in his colection yet not so much in the gradation it selfe as in the premises which being either false or at the least aequiuocall the conclusion must of necessitie be faultie That which deceiued him is his Irish article of faith in that it affirmeth the receiuing of the Eucharist without a competent number of comunicants is contrarie to the institution of Christ For though it is true that when Christ instituted the Sacrament he did actuallie comunicate those that were present yet it is not true that he included in the institution of it that iust so in all occasions it should be practized neither gaue he anie negatiue precept therein in that respect but onelie an affirmatiue which according to it nature not allwayes but onelie according to time place and persons obledgeth So that the distribution is neither anie essentiall parte of the Sacrament nor yet anie necessarie propertie of it to be in all occasions exercised but rather appertaineth onelie to the due administration of it according to the foresaid circumstances and heerein consists the aequiuocation of the first article Now touching the second part which affirmeth that the receiuing of the Priests alone is cōtrarie to the practice of the primatiue church is also equiuocall for if it meanes that the primatiue Church did in all circumstāces of time place and persons practice the same either by virtue of Christs institution or commaund so it is false as we haue alreadie showed but if it meanes onely that indeede so it was practized in the primatiue Church either alwaies or for the moste parte yet not as a thing alsolutely necessarie either by virtue of Christs institution or precept so we cannot deny but that it is true which the second parte of the article affirmeth but then this
properlie so called and to be beleeued of all for an article of faith as instituted by Christ The number of which authours being not onelie verie greate in itselfe but also farre greater and of farre more learned men then all those who in the reformed Churches hould the contrarie as I persuade my selfe Sir Humfrey cannot denie it is most euidēt that to saie nothing of those auncient writers which by their proofes of euerie particular Sacrament by Scriptures and Fathes doe plainelie wittnesse the same trueth he had no reason at all for this parte of his greate demaunded And now touching the rest of it I answer first that as it is certaine the reformers themselues if we should demaunde the like of them concerning the number of those Sacramēts which they defēd for truely properly such to be belieued as an article of faith and as instituted by Christ cannot prooue either by scripture or any one authour I doe not say for about a Thousand yeeres as they doe but for a Thousand and foure hundreth yeeres after Christ that they are precisely twoe and no more nor lesse so consequentie they ought not to require of vs that which they themselues are not able to performe in their owne cause and case Neuerthelesse that our aduersarie may plainely see we are not behinde with him but rather farre before him and the rest of his brothers in this particular I answer farther that all those Fathers who by expresse places of scripture proue euerie one of those Sacraments in particular and no other which the Roman Church houldeth for truely properlie such doe thereby also shew at the least tacitly that those and no more nor lesse are beleeued for such by faith For testimonie of which trueth because it would be too tedious in answere of one argument to produce so many of the Fathers as might be alledged I will onely alledge Cal. Instit S. Augustine who beinge euen according to our aduersaries oppinion of him a faithfull witnesse of antiquitie his testimonie may iustly serue for all the rest and because of the Sacramēts of Baptisme and Eucharist there is no controuersie I will onely produce those testimonies which conuince the other fiue Wherefore that confirmation is truely and properlie a Sacrament S. Augustine affirmeth lib. 2. contra lit Pet. cap. 104. where he saith thus The Sacrament of Chrisme in the nature of visible signes Sacrosanctum est is a sacred and holy Sacrament as Baptisme and he hath the like of order lib. 2. cont Epist Parm. cap. 13. sayinh They are both Sacraments and both by a certaine consecration are giuen to man that when he is baptzed this when he is ordered and in the same place he also saith that both of them be Sacraments which no man doubteth Of Pennance he saith lib. 1. de adult coniug cap. 26. 28. eadem est causa Baptismi reconciliations fine quibus Sacramentis homines credunt se mori non debere The same cause or reason is of Baptisme and Reconciliation with out which Sacraments men beleeue they ought not to dye Matrimonie he compareth with Baptisme lib. 1. de nuptijs concup cap. 10. where he saith that the matter of this Sacrament is that man and woman ioyned in mariage may inseperably perseuer together as long as they liue And the like saying he hath of the perpetuall effect of this Sacrament comparing it with the perpetuall effect of Baptisme And in the 14. chapter of his booke de bono coniugali he compareth matrimonie with the Sacrament of Order which order as we haue cited before he compared with Baptisme in another place Finally of Extreame vnction he maketh mention lib. 2. de visit infir cap. 4. and in his 215. Sermon of the saints Where although he doth not in expresse tearmes affirme extreame vnction to to be one of the Sacraments yet he expressely affirmeth there and serm de temp 115. that the ceremonie of vnction which S. Iames mentioneth and the promisse belong vnto the faithfull and are to be practized by the Priests as the Apostle commaundes all which proues plainily that S. Augustin held it for a Sacrament as well as the other six and altho' some doubt may be made whether the booke de visit infir be truelie S. Augustines worke yet certaine it is that the authour of it is both good and auncient And thus much out of S. Augustine for the proofe of euerie one of the seuen Sacraments in particular besides that which he speaketh in generall of them and of the benefit which the Church hath receaued from God by the institution of them in his first sermon vpon the 108. psalme where he saith thus What a greate gift is the office of the administration of the Sacraments in Baptisme Eucharist and in the rest of the holy Sacraments so that we see that S. Augustin stanneth plainely against the doctrine of Sir Humfrey And doth fully answer his question touching the number of the Sacraments defended by the Roman Church And supposing he makes soe speciall mention of these seuen as he doth more then of any other externall signe or ceremonie of the Church to some of which neuertheles he giueth also the name of Sacrament and supposing also he cōpareth or all most of them with those two which the reformers themselues hould for proper and true Sacraments in their effects and sanctitie as also amplifying the benefit which God hath conferred to the Church by the institution of them that which he doth not with the rest of the holie signes and ceremonies which the same Church also vseth supposing all these circumstances I saie it is more then certaine that he speaketh of them as of true and proper Sacramants which for such haue beene recreaued and belieued in the vniuersall Church euen euer since the time of Christ the institutour of them And so let this suffice for an answere of that vast demande of our Thrasoniā knight and to demōstrate that notwithstanding all his circumspection his owne conditionall curse is turned into an absolute and so is fallen vpon him with all it weight and forces as a iust punishment of the temeritie and excesse of that boldnes which he committeth in protesting against a truth confirmed with such authoritie and testimonie as may satisfie the most tender conscience and settle the most wauering minde in the world And yet for confirmation of the foresaid answere we may further adde that supposing the Master of Sentences so manie yeeres past defended the seauen Sacraments with the institution of them by Christ himselfe and their necessitie and profit in the Church of God and supposing the same authour writ nothing but what he found in the auncient Fathers from the collection of whose sentences he tooke his appellation supposing I say all this which his workes doe witnesse it is most apparent in the morall iudgment of anie indifferent man that the doctrine which he deliuered concerning the foresaid number of
make anie question of it in this nature For supposing their extraordinarie affection that way and that single life is so vnsauourie to them that if it lay in their power they would rather suffer the whole quire of virgins to perish then they would make a religious vowe of perpetuall chastitie or liue without a woman supposing this I say in my opinion they ought in all reason sooner to haue honoured matrimonie with the title of a Sacrament then to haue quite depriued it of that which the scripture it selfe doth giue it Yet supposing they be so preposterous that they will rather impugne that which they otherwise loue best then seeme to agree to the Romane doctrine I tell them all and particularilie him with whome I dispute that although mariage was by God himselfe onelie ordayned in paradise as a ciuill contract Neuerthelesse Christe who came not to dissolue the lawe but to eleuate it to a higher degree of perfection amongst other things he pleased to honore the same with the true nature and properties of a Sacrament giuing also tho' not immediatlie by himselfe yet by his Apostle S. Paul the verie name and title of a Sacrament whereas notwithstanding neyther he himselfe nor anie of his Apostles or Euangelists euer gaue that name to anie of the rest of the Sacraments Wherefore to come nearer to the purpose I say that the institution of this Sacrament was by Christe himselfe who in the 19. chapter of S. Mathewe ordayned the coniunction of man wife to be inseperable to the end it so might be a sacred signe of the indissoluble coniunction of Christe and his Church as it is declared by the Apostle Ephes 5. where he expreslie giueth it the name of a great Sacrament in regard of the sacred coniunction partelie by the hypostaticall vnion and partelie by the vnion of charitie betwixt Christe and his spouse the Church which it signifieth Which foresaid coniunction of man and wife explicated by words of the present tense is the element and Christs ordinance and application of the same to the foresaid signification is the institution by virtue of which it also conferreth grace to the receiuers to the end they may liue in that perpetuall vnion of mindes which is required to the representation of the inseperable vnion of Christe and his Church which is all and more then our aduersarie himselfe demaunded of vs before in this particular matter To which if we adde the authoritie of the Church and auncient fathers for the interptetation of those scriptures which we haue produced for proofe of the truth of this and the rest of the foresaid fiue Sacraments which authorities of the fathers if need required and the place did serue for them I could easilie produce it would yet more plainelie appeere with how little reason the pretensiue reformed Congregations doe exclude them out of the number of true and proper Sacraments And so now according to this a verie easie answere may be framed to all that which the knight bringeth against the septenarie number of Sacraments in the rest of this paragraph and particularilie to the testimonies of those Romane authours and Fathers which he produceth in fauour of his cause And first touching the Fathers which hee citeth besides that which hath binne alreadie spoken I further adde that there was not one of them which was of the reformers opinion in this matter as is most apparent in that Sir Humfrey himselfe could not produce so much as one Father that auerreth the onelie duall number of Sacraments Nay they are so farre ftom this that there is not one of them who doth not in one place or other make expresse mention of more then two if professedlie they make mention of anie at all Secondlie I say that as the reformers cannot with anie probabilitie inferre out of those Fathers who affirmed that the two Sacraments Baptisme and the Eucharist haue flowed out of the side of Christe that there are no more nor lesse then two so neyther can they in anie sort thence inferre that the same Fathers taught not the septenarie number of Sacraments And more then this if the reformers stand vpon this so much that the Fathers by the bloud which issued out of our Sauiours side vnderstood the Sacrament of the bloud of Christe then they must consequentlie eyther confesse that the same Fathers held the reall presence of the bloude of Christe in the Eucharist which yet they themselues denie or else at the least that the reformed Churches haue no true Sacrament at all for that according to their confession there is in it neyther bloud nor bone And out of this generall answere to the testimonies of the auncient Fathers we may inferre how falselie Sir Humfrey in the end of his 149. page affirmeth that they did insist sometimes in the number of two and so restrayned the Church to the definite number of two onelie which saying of his is a manifest falsitie and iniurious to those Fathers whome he so chargeth as that which I haue produced out of S. Augustine in this period doth plainelie conuince in these fiue Sacraments which the reformers denie Neyther was he able to produce one testimonie out of anie of them for proofe of his fayned position but so leaueth it vnconfirmed more then with that fame vntruth by which he belyeth most impudentlie the foresaid Fathers all at a clappe Neyther hath that which he further addeth of the same Fathers in the next page anie greater truth or foundation then this where he sayth that had the Fathers beleeued that those fiue Sacraments had binne instituted by Christe they would of necessitie haue concluded them for true and proper Sacraments and haue easilie found in them the number of seuen Thus in effect Sir Humfrey discourseth to which I answere first that doubtles if the Fathers had had but halfe the occasion which the Church hath had since their time and especiallie since the foundation of the reformed Churches they would of necessitie haue treated and spoken expresselie of the septenarie number and haue distinguished as now the Church and diuines doe betwixt proper and improper Sacraments But the occasion fayling they neyther had necessitie nor conueniencie to speake otherwise of them then they haue donne Nay some of them especiallie those who writ against the Gentiles were rather obliged by the course of those times not to mention the secret misteries of our faith at all then to reueale them to the profaners of them more then was preciselie necessarie for the answere of their obiections Vid. Theodoret Dial. 2. which indeed is the true reason why diuerse of the foresaid more auncient Fathers haue spoken so obscurelie and sparinglie euen of some of the cheife misteries of Christian Religion Secondlie I say that howsoeuer the auncient Fathers spoke of the expresse number of the Sacraments certaine it is they eyther expreslie taught or at the least supposed for certaine doctrine of faith that all those which
psalleret Nūc alia est ratio antiquato vulgari linguae Latinae vsu quam linguā propter intermissum communē vsum ex Ecclesia diuinisque osficijs minime conueniebat exturbari inque locū eius vulgares vernaculas substitui Multa etiam dicta Patrum c. Gretzerus defens lib. 2. c. 16. and how repugnant Gretzerus is to Sir Humfreys tenet in this particular as professedly he must of necessitie be as being a professed defender of Bellarmins doctrine in matters of Controuersie But now because I haue already treated in part of this before and breifly giuen sentence already of that which Sir Humfrey produceth for the defense of his doctrine I will include the contents of this whole paragraph in the same censure and so passe along to the next which is of the worship of images where we are to examine whether the knight bringeth any sounder matter then he hath donne heere where as I should haue noted before he falsely relateth a historie of certaine shepheardes out of his false frend Cassander which shepherds he affirmeth according to his emendicated relation to haue transubstantiated bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ by pronuntiation of the words of consecration which they had learned whereas indeed the authenticall historie of that strange accident written by Sophronius saith onely that the bread and wine were suddenly burnt by fire from heauen and the shepheards struken speachlesse for a time But this howsoeuer it happened being it can serue Sir Humfrey for no greater purpose then to replenish his pages I leaue it to the reader to consider of this his proceeding as he pleaseth Presently in the entrance of the 7. Paragraph Sir Hūfrey pronoūceth a very sharpe sentence against the Coūcell of Trent for decreeing that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to the images of Christ and his Saintes condemning it for a wicked and blasphemous opinion Loe heere the sentence of condemnation which is to be iudged so much the more rash and temerarious in respect the peremptorie Iudge leaueth out the greater part of the doctrine he censureth which if he had added at large as it standeth in the Councell it would sufficiently haue iustified it selfe and because Sir Humfrey for reasons of state would not take so much paines I will doe it for him The Councell therefore in the 25. Sess page 202. decreeth in this manner The images of Christ the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saintes are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and due honour and veneration is to be giuen vnto them not that it is beleiued there is in them any diuinity or virtue for which they are to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or that confidence is to be put in them as in times past the Gentiles did who put their trust in Idols but because the honour which is exhibited vnto images is referred vnto the Prototipes which they represent so that by the images which we salute and before which we vncouer our heads and kneele we adore Christ and reuerence the Sainctes whose similitude they haue that which by the decrees of councels especially of the second Nicene Synod hath binne established against the oppugners of images thus the decree of the Councell of Trent in which we finde not one word either wicked or blasphemous nay rather euery word soundeth nothing but piety and religion towards Christ and his Sainctes whom it will haue honoured not only in themselues but also in and by their images which manner of honour as it is declared by the Councell is not onely not contrary to scriptures as Sir Humfrey falsely affirmeth but also very conformable to them both in regard the scriptures make mention of honour due vnto materiall things for the relation of representation which they haue to God or other his holie creatures Psal 95. Matth 5. as also for that we vse no other reuerence to images thē the Church doth teach vs whose authority the same scripture commendeth and commandeth vs to follow and obey more then this the Coūcel is so farre frō attributing to images anie vnlawfull manner of honour that it doth not once vse either the worde worship or adore except where it speaketh of Christ himselfe which wordes neuerthelesse if they be taken in the sense in which diuines doe commonlie take them include no offence at all as signifying an exteriour action of honour indifferent euen according to the phrase of scripture both to God and creatures and being distinguished onelie according to the diuersitie of the internall affection and submission of the minde which submission and affection in the honouring of an inanimate creature as an image is is neuer by the worshipper exhibited to the image it selfe but onelie to the thing it representeth nay nor yet the exteriour signe of adoration as genuflectiō or inclination of the bodie is giuen to the image itselfe for itselfe and to remaine in it but rather by the image which we salute or before which wee prostrate our selues the same signe of honour is transferred ioyntelie with the affection of the mynde to the thing which is adored Which doctrine is both so cleare in itselfe and so plainelie declared by the Councell expreslie teaching that the honour exhibited vnto thē is referred to the Paterne Cōc Trid. Sess 25. decret de imag that a verie child may conceiue it to be free from all superstitious worship and adoration in so much that it is but grosse ignorance malice and madnesse in our aduersaries to exclaime against the Romanists as idolaters for the honour they giue to images And I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey or anie other of his reformed companions in what place of scripture this proposition The images of Christ and his saints are to be duelie honoured is condemned for wicked blasphemous and the same I say of the auncient Fathers And if they cannot produce as much as one onelie place either out of scripture or Fathers which doth truelie serue to that purpose I meane which doth truelie condemne the foresaid proposition in that manner as I knowe neither they nor the knight can performe let him confesse that is censure of the Romanists is temerarious and false and nothing els but a renouation of an old Iewish complainte against the Christians of more auncient ages It is true I knowe the reformers vse commonlie to alledge for their denyall of honor to images both scripture and Fathers as also Sir Humfrey doth in this paragraffe and particularlie they vse to produce the wordes of that which they call the second cammaundement to wit thou shall not make to thy selfe anie grauen image But touching this I haue showed aboue In the 4. Period that according to the doctrine of S. Augustin there is no such second commaundement those wordes being onelie a parte of the first Secondlie howsoeuer the matter stands certaine it is that except the sectaries
purpose and couninglie left out that which makes against him Postquam vero satis in fide Christiani imbuti satis cōfirmati fuerunt saluberrima rursus ratione visū est illud statutum debere aboleri per generalē decretū est Synodū imagines atque picturas in Ecclesijs fieri quae á laicis simplicibus pro libris haberētur Clemang de nouis celeber non inst for also that author affirmes that the vniuersall Church induced by iust occasion did decree in the Primatiue Church that no Images should be placed in Churches in regarde of those who were cōuerted from Gentilisme to Christian faith which how true or false it is importeth not much for the present dispute yet the same Clemangis presently after affirmes also that the same Church did alter that lawe and ordaine that Images should be vsed in Churches for the instruction of the vulgar sorte and for memorie of Christ and his saints and yet further adding that he brings this but for an example to showe that this being but an Ecclesiasticall lawe it may be chāged at the Churches pleasure so that if Sir Humfrey had cited this author home he could haue founde nothing to proue his position to wit that the doctrine of Image-honor is a blasphemous opinion but rather the contrarie is expressed sufficiently by Clemangis for that to set Images in a holie place that is in the temple of God as he expressely affirmes the same Church did for most holesome reasones is one of the greatest acts of honour that the Romanists exhibite vnto them And by this we se that our aduersarie hath neither dealt sincerelie in the alledging of this author nor in the rehearsall of his wordes in which he passeth in silence the cheefe parte of them viz those in which he shewes that prohibition of the primitiue Church which he mentiones touching the placing of pictures in Churches to haue beene onely an Ecclesiasticall precept and changeable yea and de facto changed by a generall Councell as his wordes related in the margen declare That which Cassander also doth plainely insinuate when in his consultation of the vse of images he saith tho falsely the Fathers in the beginning of the Church did abhorre all veneration of images yet afterwardes in the same treatise he graūtes conuenient and due honor vnto them as in another place I will shewe by relation of his owne formall wordes So now this being all which I need to speake of this matter seeing that by this I haue saide it will manifestly appeare that Sir Humfrey hath fayled both in the authenticall proofe of the antiquitie or vniuersalitie of his owne position touching the vse of images and in the disproofe of ours I passe to the next paragraph in the which doctrine of Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church is impugned by him most couragiously by virtue of an old chalenge made in Martin Luthers dayes but as yet neuer performed therefore let vs see howe our newe Champion Sir Humfrey vseth his armes First he relates the decree of the Tridentine Councell Sess 25. yet in a some thing different manner then it runneth there But the true tenour of it is this in substance that whereas by Christ the power of Indulgēces was graūted to the Church that shee hath vsed that power deliuered vnto her by diuine ordinance euen in the most auncient times the sacred Synod doth teach and commaunde that the vse of them as verie prositable to Christian people approued by the authoritie of sacred Councells ought to be retayned and doth condemne those with a curse who either affirme them to be vnlawfull or denie that there is in the Church authoritie to graunt them this is the true tenour of the decree which Sir Humfrey hath not so sincerelie rehearsed as he ought to haue done which whether he did it to aduantage his cause or onelie out of an ill custome he hath gotte by his frequent exercise of such trickes in diuers places of his booke I knowe not onelie of this I ame sure that he produceth nothing of anie force for the impugnation of it in all his paragraffe notwithstanding he bouldlie auerreth that it will be founde I knowe not where that neither Christ nor the primatiue Fathers euer knew much lesse euer exercised such pardons as are nowe daylie practized in the Church of Rome this he affirmeth most stronglie but proueth his affirmation so weakely that its hard to iudge whether his temeritie in affirming or his defectiuenesse in prouing that which he affirmeth be more excessiue how be it most certaine it is that neither the one nor the other can be iustified for that if he had vsed the least circumspection in the world he might haue founde not onelie in Bellarmin and other diuines but also in the Councell of Trent which he citeth mention both of scripture Fathers copiouslie cited quoted for the proofe both of the power and vse of Indulgences in the Church from time to time of which as it seemes he durst not take anie notice but passed it ouer in silence to the ende his greate wordes which he vttered in the beginning might carie a fairer colour of trueth which other wise would presentlie haue discouered themselues to be false True it is he describeth one kinde of mitigation or relaxation of punisshment imposed vpon offenders for denyall of their faith or sacrificing to idols which he graunteth to haue beene called by the name of pardon or Indulgence and to haue beene deriued from sainct Paule who released the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication all which tho' it be true in itselfe yet is it but an euasion which he vseth to the end he may with greater colour reiect those pardons which are truelie and properlie Indulgences that is a relaxation from a temporall punishment due vnto a penitent sinner according to Gods iustice for satisfaction of the paine of his offenses alreadie remitted touching the guilt and eternall punishment of the same by vertue of the keyes that is by the power of bynding and loosing sinnes which Christ gaue to his Church and in her particularlie to the cheefe visible pastour thereof Of the power and practize of which Kynde of pardon if Sir Humfrey had not beene disposed to cogge he might haue found good store of testimonies both out of scriptures Councells and Fathers alledged for the same by Roman diuines And as for scriptures there are two places especiallie which doe plainelie enuffe conuince the foresaid truth of Indulgences if they be reight vnderstanded according to the interpretation of the auncient Fathers The one is that generall sentence of our Sauiour Math. 18. in which he giueth an illimitated power to his Apostles and in them to their lawfull successours for binding and loosing without anie restriction either to this or that one matter or to this or that manner of remission and consequentlie in that most generall power is included the authoritie of remitting
esse quia regitur Spiritis Sancto Syluester in sum verbo Indult Bell de Indul l. 2. c. 1. Lastely touching Bellarmine Valētia I saye they are neyther of them cited by Sir Humfrey either with any great sinceretie or to any great purpose For altho' Bellarmin doth insinuate that there are not manie of the more auncient authors which make mention of Indulgences yet he doth not affirme that there is want of antiquitie consent in the Fathers in this matter as Sir Humfrey doth falselie deduce out of his wordes but onelie insinuateth that the defect of number of the more auncient Fathers which mention Indulgēces is sufficientlie supplyed by the vse custome of the Church without writing by reason saith he that manie things are retayned in the Church by that meanes onelie And as for Valentia who as he is cited by the knight relates out of S. Thomas the opinion of some who called Indulgences a pious fraude to allure men to the performance of those pious workes which are requyred in the forme of the Indulgence graunted it is true there was such a tenet in those dayes but as it is true that S. Thomas relates it so is it also true that he condēnes the same for verie dangerous that which our aduersarie if he had dealt honestlie ought not to haue omitted And yet not obstanding he could not but see that position censured by S. Thomas in the verie place cited by Valentia as also he censureth another little better to wit that by virtue of the Indulgence itselfe no punishment neither in the iudgement of God nor the Church could be remitted notwithstanding all this I saye yet Sir Humfrey subtillie let it passe making by that meanes his reader beleeue that the foresaid tenet was long before the dayes or Luther according to the relation of Aquinas as he saith an vncondemned opinion of some diuines reiected as erroneous by Valentia alone who neuerthelesse expresselie affirmeth it to haue beene an opinion hised at by all Orthodox writers opinio ab Orthodoxis omnibus explosa Nay which is yet more grosse Sir Humfrey leaueth quite out some parte of the wordes of the foresaid opinion as it is rehearsed by Valentia to wit those which mention satisfaction made to God by reason of the deuotion of the gainer of the Indulgence value of the pious workes in ioyned him for the obtaining of the same all which because it sounded contrarie to the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches it struct Sir Humfrey deafe one that eare so he left it out I omit diuers particulars which our aduersarie vtters here there in the progresse of his Paragraffe Because they either consiste of some inauthenticall relations aboute the vse or rather aboute the abuse of some particular graunts of Indulgences as that out of the office of Saram out of Guitcherdin or els they cōsiste in his owne plaine calūnious vntruthes as that Indulgences are graunted onelie to drawe money frome the grainers that the Romanists pretēd vniuersalitie of Fathers for euerie point of faith that the article of Indulgences wantes authoritie of scripture of all this I saye I need to make no further discussion in regarde the apparent falsitie of it doth sufficientlie confute it selfe shewes that it proceeds rather frome a man malitiouslie affected ignorant of the state of the question more disposed to cauille then carefull to attaine to the truth of the doctrine For suppose the abuses were neuer so true which as in all other things so in this I confesse there haue ben some especiallie in the questors or inferior administrators of Indulgences may be more neuerthelesse these abuses of particular men doe not impeach the power authoritie lawfull vse of the same which onelie is that which my aduersarie I haue now in question And so now for conclusion of this matter we may hence inferre how impiouslie the sectaries proceed in the denyall impugnation of the Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church which altho' they had no other vtilitie or profit in them then to induce people to the exercise of such pious workes as are requyred in the tenor of them that is fasting prayer almes so heighly commended in the scriptures receiuing of the Sacraments yet in common reason ought they not to be reiected but rather maintained sought for with great zeale deuotion And so now let this suffice for the intyre discussion of this paragraffe in which I haue founde nothing to the excuse the author frome the same censure I haue layd vpon him in the precedent matters THE IX PERIOD VVE are now come to the 10. section of the booke in which Sir Humfrey produceth the testimonies of the Romanists touching the infallible certaintie of the Protestant faith the vncertaintie of the Romish this is his designe but I ame verily persuaded he will fayle of his purpose I will examen particulars that the truth may appeare But before this I must aduertise the reader that in this section ther is litle substance to be founde it consists cheefly in a large recapitulation of the supposed confessions of the Romanists as that they haue confessed that iustificatiō is by faith onely that the conuersion of the bread in to Christs bodie was not generally receiued by the Fathers that the certaine definite number of Sacraments was vnknowne to scripture Fathers that the Indulgences now vsed haue no authoritie from scripture or Fathers the like all which particulars we haue allreadie disproued in their seuerall places In substance a great parte of it is but an idle repetition of those falsities which the kingh hath vttered before with some newe additions to make the number of his lyes more ample complete this he performeth with great abundance of wordes of amplification thinking to make all sure calleth to witnesse both men Angels And thus for space of a leafe or two he bringeth nothing but verbal discourses which with the very breath of any iudicious reader presently vanish away so they need no other confutation Afterwardes he comes to some particulars which I haue not yet touched of these I will make a breefe examen And to omitte those points which I haue before discussed in his page 242. he indeuoreth to proue out of Bellarmin that the Church of Rome hath ouerthrowne in one tenet all certaintie of true faith he performeth it very solidly because for sooth Bellarmin affirmeth that none can be certaine by certaintie of faith that he receiueth a Sacrament by reason of the vncertainty of the intention of the minister without which the Sacrament can not be made And the argument the kinght framed of the doctrine of the Cardinall is this It is a positiue grounde of the Romā Religiō that a Sacrament can not be made without the intention of the minister but the intentiō of the minister can not be knowne by faith
the mouth of two or three witnesses euerie worde may stand And so suppose it were true that S. Chrysostome sayd iust that which Sir Humfrey would haue him yet is not one testimony enuffe to conuince an aduersary thus much I say for as much as concerneth the point of controuersie it selfe of the all sufficiencie of scripture But because the knight may say this is not that which he intendeth directlie in this place but onelie to conuince that Bellarmin hath eluded the foresayd testimonie therefore I answere secondlie that Sir Humfrey needed not to haue gone to Bellarmin's Chronologie for the censure of the foresaid worke for he might haue founde it more plainelie censured before in his controuersies as appeareth lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto the 11. chapter Where the Cardinall hath these wordes But this testimonie is not of Chrysostome but of the author of the imperfect who was either an Arian or certainlie his booke was corrupted by the Arians in manie places Thus Bellarmin Shewing the corruptions by two seuerall instances taken out of the worke it selfe where he speaketh against the Homousians that is against the Christians of the Catholike Church to which he giueth that name because they defended beleeued the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his Father yet it s well knowne that sainct Chrysostome neuer eyther writ or spoake against the Homousians as being one of them himselfe a professed enimie to their aduersaries the Arians And hence it is plaine that Bellarmin had reason to censure that worke not to acknowledge it for S. Chrysostomes as Sir Humfrey would haue it except he would haue condemned that glorious Doctour of the Church for an Arian heretike as the reformed brothers must of necessarie consequence doe if they will haue him to be the authour of that vnperfect treatise Neyther did yet Bellarmin taxe it for that sentence which the knight alledgeth out of it as hee craftilie falselie insinuates but for other erroneous doctrine which it containeth which is no more contrarie to anie article of the Roman faith if it be trulie vnderstood then it is to the faith of the reformers except perhaps they be nearer in some points of their doctrine to the Arians then the Romanists bee whoe quite deteste abhorre the same Which I leaue to their owne consciences to determin For altho' the Romanists denie that the sole scripture pure text of the bible is sufficient to determin all controuersies doubts in doctrine or māners yet they doe not denie but that the sole scripture doth sufficientlie declare the most greatest parte of the doctrine necessarie to saluation particularlie they graunt that the true Church may be sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture truelie expounded which is the verie same that the authour of the imperfect affirmeth in the foresayd wordes Neyther is it all one to affirme that the Church is knowne onelie by scriptures to affirme that the scripture onelie hath all sufficiencie as Sir Humfrey doth falselie suppose when he vseth the first proposition taken out of the author of the Imperfect as a medium to proue the second which is his owne position because to know the Church onelie is not all the doctrine which the scripture containeth as necessarie to saluation but onelie a parte of the same so it is cleare that how true soeuer it be that the church is knowne by scripture onelie yet cā it not be thēce inferred that all the doctrine of the Church necessarie to saluation is sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture except out of the pregnance of his wit extrauagant skill in logique the knight can inferre an vniuersall proposition out of a particular which I know he can no more performe then he can extract by arte two oysters out of one apple And thus we see that Sir Humfrey hath not proued by the exception of Bellarmin against the foresaid treatise that either the Roman Church or Romanists haue eluded their recordes or reall proofes of Fathers touching the question of all sufficiencie of scripture for that the sentence thence produced proueth no such thing And consequentlie there was no necessitie that Bellarmin should indeuour to infringe the authoritie of the whole worke for such a testimonie drawne out of it as is not contrarie to the Roman faith neither can it with anie coulour be imagined that the Cardinall would euer haue layde his censure vpon the same if it had not ben faultie in greater matters Secondlie Sir Humfrey produceth saint Augustin touching the deniall of honour of Saints where he sayth that manie are tormented with the diuell who are worshipped by men on earth And whereas Bellarmins answere according to Sir Humfreys relation is that peraduenture it is none of Augustins that sentence the honest knight as if Bellarmin were all the Romanists that euer writ or spoake maketh a generall interrogatorie saying what say the Romanists to this As if that which one onelie priuate man speaketh in a priuate matter were to be accounted the voyce of all men of his profession And yet Bellarmin doth not onelie adde more in his ansere yea much more to the purpose which not withstanding our braue Sir Sycophant very slylie omittes viz. that he could not finde those wordes in S. Augustin but also addeth three other principall anseres to the same obiection And so it appeareth that insteed of proofe that Bellarmin eludeth the recordes of S. Augustin the elusorie knight eludes both Bellarmin his reader egregiouslie by deceitfullie omitting that which both iustified the Cardinalls proceeding also declared the true meaning of the place cited in sainct Augustins name Thirdly he taxeth Bellarmin stapleton for saying that S. Augustin was deceiued or committed a humane errour in his interpretation of those wordes super hanc Petram caused by the diuersitie of the Hebrewe Grek Latin tongue which either he was ignorant of or marked not But I ansere first that what soeuer error S. Augustin might commit in this matter certaine it is that it was onelie aboute the interpretation of those wordes Math. 16. thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church For touching Sainct Peters supreme authoritie in it selfe which is that our irreligious aduersarie intendes cheefelie to diminish in this occasion it is most apparent that S. Augustin stronglie maintaines it in his second of Baptisme cap. 1. saying Quis nesciat illum Apostolatus Petri principatum cuilibet Episcopatui esse praeferendum That is who can be ignorāt that Principalitie or soueraintie of Peters Apostolate is to be preferred before anie Episcopate or Bishoprike And in his 15. sermon of the saints he speakes yet more plaine to this purpose affirming that our sauiour did nominate S. Peter for the foundation of the Church ideo digne fundamentum hoc Ecclesia colit supra quod Ecclesiastici officij altitudo consurgit And therefore saith S. Augustin the Church deseruedlie honoreth this
saying that he seeth not how the foresaid authours can be excused from errour in that particular for that the Cardinall onelie condemneth them in that which the reformers themselues according to reason sounde doctrine ought to condemne also that in no question of Controuersie betweene vs them nor which can iustelie preiudice the foresayd Fathers authoritie in other matters especially in which they all agree Lastelie sayth Sir Humfrey we produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin To which Salmeron the Iesuit quoth hee ansereth that weake is the place which is drawne from authoritie But first I aske of Sir Humfrey what he his consorts haue to doe with the immaculate Conception For that is no Controuersie of faith betwixt the Romanists them it is a question among some Romanists them selues lawfull for either side to make the best vse they can of the testimonies of Fathers either by imbrasing them or expounding thē in that particular point as they finde them most aduantageous for the defence of their seuerall opiniōs so farre as the Church permits thē that without any disparishmēt to their authority in regarde their wordes are not so plaine but that they may seeme to admit diuers expositions in that particular And as for Salmerō he neither speaketh of the Fathers in generall when all or most of them consent in a matter of fayth nor yet when they plainelie agree in anie other point of doctrine but onely when they speake doubtfullie or obscurelie this I say vpon supposition the place of the foresaid authour is truelie cited which in regarde I haue taken the knight so often tardie in that Kynde of proceeding I may vnrashlie suspected And the truth is that hauing now viewed the place in the booke which is in the 51. Disputation of Salmeron vpon the 5. to the Romās I finde that he speakes not of the vniforme consent of Fathers or Doctors but onelie of a certaine great number of thē to which he opposeth an other as great as he supposeth yea greater therefore he addes Quare si authorum numero decertare velint meaning the opposers of the immaculate conception of the Virgen procul dubio absorbebuntur So that this author is abused iust as I did coniecture before I sa his booke And altho' I can not much commend Salmeron for anie great ingeniousnesse in his application of the shepards sentence yet sure I ame that if he applied it not verie aptelie you Sir Humfrey applie it much worse more absurdelie And thus hauing nowe examined all the particulars of this section hauing founde nothing which proueth the authours intent I will end my period yet noting by the way how vanelie Sir Humfrey concludeth his discourse affirming his reader to haue heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the behalfe of the Protestant doctrine made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues which notobstanding is all false meere delusion for that I haue made it clearelie appeare that neyther anie Romanist by him cited hath graunted that anie one of the Fathers doth teach anie point of Protestant doctrine nor yet that they speake in those places here cited of the cheefe points of doctrine in Controuersie but contrarilie it appeareth that they speake onelie either of other matters which little concerne the Catholike faith or at the least they speake in an other sense then the reformers pretend yea that which is more remarkable not with vniforme consent but rather fewe or at the most two or three in one matter in which manner of proceeding what argument soeuer may be deduced from them it is no more trulie to be iudged called the testimonie of the Fathers absolutelie then that may be called absolutely the testimony of the reformers in which neuerthelesse onelie some fewe of them yeald their testimonies yet that but in some particulars those no principall points of faith And as for this complaint which Sir Humfrey maketh so formallie of the elusion of the proofes recordes of the Fathers as also touching that which he in like manner frameth against the Roman Church for her prohibition or censure of bookes I wonder with what face he can reprehend that which he knoweth to be so much practized in his owne Church in which there cannot the least pamphlet or smalest volume come forth which if it doth but seeme to cōtradict anie parte or point of the English faith or anie other point of Puritanimse is not presentlie ceased vpon by a pack of Pursuiuants put to the tortor of the Consistoriall assemblie there to receiue sentence of condemnation by virtue of which it seldome scapeth the flames of Vulcan Of which in parte is witnesse Doctour Mountagues latelie published booke which by reason it sauored a little of some points of Romanisme by an expresse Apeale euen to Cesar himselfe could not be saued from the seuere censure of the Puritan sinagoge And particularlie touching the authoritie of ancient Fathers if it were a faulte in the Romanists to call in questiō some passages or sentences of some of their writings where they iustelie suspect them to haue ben corrupted by heretikes Surelie the sectaries of these tymes are much deeper plunged in this nature thē they are in regarde that vnder the breight colour of reformation they doe not onelie vse to reprehend particular passages but reiect whole bookes that not onelie of the most ancient Fathers as appeareth in the Hierarchie of sainct Denis but also whole bookes of the scriptures themselues as is manifest in the bookes of the Machabies others which they vtterlie renounce condemne for Apochripha not sparing the booke of wisdome it selfe such cruell patrons they are of ignorance and of want of diuine knowledge Nay now of late they are be come so precise in this their spirituall tyranie that in their last editions as I ame informed they haue quite banished the foresaid bookes of Machabies Tobie Iudith wisdome Ecclesiasticus out of their bible To omit other bookes of lesse moment which they haue eyther mangled or left quite out of their editions as in the Inquisitors Index may be seene So that nowe the reader may plainelie perceiue that Sir Humfrey his pure simmists are so farre from excuse for their importune complaint of the Romanists in this particular that we may iustelie compare them to those Phariseis who could sooner see a mote in their fellowes eye then a beame in their owne And so here I leaue them all to be censured for hypocrites by Christ himselfe passe to the next section THE XII PERIOD THIS Period shall containe an other accusation of the knight in which he chargeth the Romanists with the crime of razing the recordes of the reformers clipping their owne authours tongues by which sayth he they are conuinced of an ill cause cōscience But how falselie the Romanists be accused by Sir
no authoritie But suppose Cephas did indeed not signifie the head yet what great recorde I praye can that be for Sir Humfreys Church And so whether Cephas signifie the head or the feet whether ridiculum est be in or out of the bookes it auayles him nothing but some smale matter to quarell aboute yet the truth is that the most authenticall edition of Anwerpe 1585. hath the same wordes which Sir Humfreyes cites out of the Roman print in such sorte as one may rather much more suspect those wordes it is ridiculous to be falselie added in the Moguntin edition then detracted in the others Finallie whether the wordes of the Councell of Laodicea be that wee ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells as Sir Humfrey will haue it also some Catholike copies haue or whether in steed of the worde Angells wee reade angles or corners as some other editions haue the matter is not great so the decree be reight vnderstood that is so that the sense bee this we ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells superstitiouslie as some did in those tymes For this being the true meaning of the Councell as it appeareth by the subsequent wordes which are those and make congregations of abominable idolatrie to the Angells it is more then plaine that no recorde can there be founde for the doctrine of the reformed Churches But onelie it serues Sir Humfrey to make a plausible florish to the simple reader to the end that by working vpon his weaknesse by falselie taxing his aduersaries hee may make his owne impostures saleable which otherwise would putrifie spoile for want of vtterance Lastelie for proofe of his accusation Sir Humfrey after all this sturre he hath made produceth onelie one witnesse that a false one and altho' for the greater credit of his cause he held it expedient to giue him the decree of a diuinitie reader professor Deane of Louaine yet hauing examined the matter I founde by better information then Sir Humfrey can haue that Boxhorne before his reuolte had onelie the place a certaine of obscure Deanrie which function altho' it be a place of some credit yet it is farre inferiour to the dignitie either of a Deane of a Capitall Church or of a publike professour of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Louaine both in learning honour profit And yet this man as I receiued by authenticall relation of the Deane of S. Gudula Church in Brussels others after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his ouer amorous nature he vsed to a domestike maide seruant of his owne out of an vnsetlednesse of his lubrik mynde began at first to defend that it was not necessarie for the Preist to prononce the wordes of consecration orally but onelie to speake them mentallie afterwardes as nemo repente fit malus Boxorno once a pettie-master by degrees falling into plaine heresie founde oportunitie to passe into the land of libertie I meane into Holand with bag bagage I meane with his Sacrilegious spouse the sacred spoiles of his Church Where from the place of a fugitiue Pedant he is preferred to the dignitie of a new Euangelist is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations And this is the onely man which Sir Humfrey could bring for a witnesse against the practice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring bookes or correcting the same or approuing them according to the order decree of the Councell of Trent which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I haue specified and more which I could relate doth appeare and being also now a professed enimy and Apostata from his mother Church let the reader iudge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her and let him withall be pleased to consider that Sir Humfrey in lue of conuincing his aduersaries of ill conscience he hath by his owne bad proceeding in this section conuinced his owne to be the worst of all so is fallē in to the same pit he prepared for his enimies incidit in foueam quam fecit by forgeing of false recordes hath incurred a farre deeper dungeon of cēsure then hitherto he did in which he must remaine either till he hath payde a double fine or put in suretie for the amendment of his manners THE XIII PERIOD IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to conuince his aduersaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions as he calleth them against the scriptures by which we see that as his booke increaseth in number of leaues so he increaseth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations and these being the cardes he playeth with let vs examen his gaime He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Deane of Louaine for a witnesse against the Romanists whose worde notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of lawe to be admitted for recorde against those from whose religion he hath reuolted And so whereas he accuseth the Romā Church of poyson in religion tiranny in the common welth it is to be taken as proceeding from a poysonous minde which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomake loathes dainty meates As for the scriptures it is false slaunderous to affirme that the Romanists refuse to be tryed by them so they be taken together with the authoritie of the Church which the same scriptures commende as Saint Augustin speaketh against his aduersaries and in a true sense without which as one of the auncient Fathers saith verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is the worde of God ill vnderstanded is not the word of God Quamuis certum de scripturis non proferatur exēplum tamē earundem scripturarū à nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus quod vniuersae placet Ecclesia quam ipsarum scripturarum commēdat authoritas Aug. lib. 1. cōtra Cres c. 33. And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the dayes of Luther without alteration is as you calumniously affirme ranked by the Inquisitors inter libros prohibitos among the prohibited bookes but your execrated Bible I meane your execrable translations and annotations mutilations of the most holy Bible are those that are registred in the censure where whether it haue as you affirme I knowe not certainely but I am sure it deserueth the first place because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badnesse so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemnes And of the censure of your owne abuses I graunt you may with shame enough to your selues be eye witnesses but if you meane you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures
that text which hath ben at the least since the tyme of S. Augustin commonlie vsed in the Church as appeareth by the Rhemes Testamēt which because it is founde to haue ben rightlie translated is not arraigned by the Pope but exposed to be read euen by the laitie at the least by licence aduise of their Confessors Further more in regarde of the foresayd corruptions manie other which for breuitie I omitted made by heretikes in the holie scriptures those moderne authours which Sir Humfrey citeth if they be trulie cited haue ben induced to vtter some such speeches concerning the same as if they be not trulie piouslie interpreted may giue occasion of offence to the reader for example when they affirme as he sayth the scriptures to be dead caracters a dead killing letter c. such phrases neuerthelesse as it manifestlie appeareth by the rest of their doctrine discourse in those places are not vsed by those authours with an intent in anie sorte to disgrace or diminish the dignitie of the true worde of God but onelie by those comparatiue speaches to declare how subiect the scriptures are to be corrupted detorted to the defence of heresies errours if they be considered preciselie as they are the externall written letter interpreted otherwise then by the authoritie of the visible Church in all ages the ancient Councells Fathers they haue ben vhderstood Wherefore those Romanists which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreuerentlie blasphemonlie of the holie scriptures doe no more iniurie vnto them then S. Paule did when 2. Cor. 3. he sayth of them litera occidit the letter killeth Lib. de Synodis or then did S. Hilarie when he teacheth that manie heresies haue their origin from scriptures ill vnderstood or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the booke of heretikes None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humfrey will dare to condemne either of blasphemie or irreuerence nay if he haue his senses aboute him he will easilie perceiue that those other such like phrases are not meant actiuelie of the worde of God but onelie passiuelie that is that throu ' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreuerentlie detorted abused as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of waxe And according to this we see that none of that which our aduersarie produceth here out of the Romanists is anie argument of irreuerence against the trueth inuiolabilitie of Gods worde but a calumnious accusatiō quite contrarie to the sense meaning of the foresaid authours who had not anie intention to taxe the scriptures but the corrupters false interpreters of them such as you pseudoreformers are your selues And now altho' by this which I haue sayd in generall touching this point of blasphemie against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists the authors by the knight cyted remaine sufficientlie cleared from the imputation which he layes vpon them in that nature neuerthelesse because by the particular examen of the places cyted I haue discouered that either all or most of their wordes be either corruptedlie rehearsed or their sense detorted abused therefore I will seuerallie repeate their passages declare in what respects our aduersarie hath deceitfullie traduced them And to begin with Lindanus his stromata in deed I could not haue but I haue read the place cited out of his Panoplia where I finde that when he names the scripture a dead killing letter he onelie alludes to the wordes of S. Paule 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth but the spirit giue liues Sicut illud eiusdē authoris dogma in mortuas imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum Panop lib. 1. c. 44. Neither speaking nor meaning worse of the same scripture then the Apostle himselfe affirming at the most that the bare letter of the worde of God ill interpreted doth kill the soule but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church it doth reuiue nourish it brings it to eternall lyfe yea hauing better pondered his wordes in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humfrey I perceiue the doth not absolutelie call the scriptures a dead killing letter but onelie that the doctrine of that author meaning the holie Ghost as I conceiue is put in to dead killing letters As his wordes quoted in Latin in the margen declare And in this same sense I may iustelie truelie suppose the same authour speakes in the place quoted out of his other worke if any such saying he hath in regarde that a graue learned man as he is knowne to haue ben is euer iudged to be sutable to himselfe in all times places Which learned diuine is yet further cōuinced neuer to haue spoakē otherwise then reuerentlie of the scriptures in that in euerie seueral place cited by our aduersarie he stileth them sacrae litterae sacred letters And in like manner I conceiue of Charon who as being of the same faith religion he neither did nor dared to speake otherwise then with the same due respect which the Romā Church commaundes the Romanists to vse towardes the holie written worde of God Canus in his 3. chapter of his second booke is abused by the knight Nec esse eas volunt cereum quendā nasum in sensum omnem flexibiles sed potius esse per se expositas in promptu cuique sine magistro docente patere Canus lib. 3. ca. 7. f. 176 edit Louan by his imposing vpon the Romanists that which Canus speakes of the Lutherans saying that they will not haue the scriptures to be like a nose of waxe subiect to diuers senses but rather plaine for euerie one to vnderstand without a master or teacher thus the preposterous kniht doth positiuelie affirmatiuelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus onely relates to be negatiuely asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphick sword the riddles of Sphinx and the like for he doth not absolutely say they are such but onely saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule onely which the pretended reformers receiued from Luther to wit that scriptures are easie to be interpreted and vnderstanded and according as they haue hitherto expounded them in their owne sense then saith Turrian what els should we haue of them then a Delphick sworde In which wordes you see he doth not affirme absolutely that the scriptures are such a sworde but onely that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding they may be so compared and for this cause he puts for his marginall note how to interpret scriptures according to ones owne proper sense is as to haue a Delphick sworde so by this the authors wordes which I quote in the margen in Latin his meaning is sufficiently declared together with
the knights calumnious proceeding against him Vos enim sicut a Luthero didicistis scripturas sanctas faciles ad intelligendum interpretaÌ„dum esse putatis sic eas hactenus vestro sensis intellexistis interpretati estis At si hanc solam regulam fidei Christus in Ecclesia reliquisset quid aliud quam gladium delphicum haberemê° c. Quomodo interpretari scripturas ad libidineÌ„ proprij sensus sit vt habere DelphicuÌ„ gladium coÌ„tr Sad. p. 99. Lessius is ill cited for in his 11. reason he hath none of those wordes quoted by Sir Humfrey yet in his table he hath those Scriptura quâ ratione nasus cereus regula lesbia c. nuncupetur Cyting for this his owne page 130. of his consult Where yet he hath not those formall wordes which Sir Humfrey cites but onely some others to that sense yet the truth is he doth not applye either the words or the sense to the Romanists but to the nouelists saying of them and their interpretation of scriptures by their priuate spirit Scripturam autem quisque pro suo captu iudicio intelligit vnde cum se putant scripturam habere regulam credendi loco scripturae habent imaginationem propriam c. So that here we finde no blasphemie in Lessius but imposture in Sir Humfrey It is true Lessius in his disputation of Antichrist hath those formall words cyted by Sir Humfrey in his page of the same number wher he saith the scripture is called by Catholikes a nose of Wax a Lesbious rule c. but he presently explicates in what sense to wit when it is taken for the bare wordes or letter onely secluding the sense of the Church the interpretation of Fathers as saith he it is taken by heretikes So that it is plaine that Lessius doth not say that Catholikes calle the true scripture together with the true sense a nose of Wax but onely the naked text as it is abused by corrupters Lessius demonstr 15. p. 131. An non regula illis Lesbia quam omnibus suis imaginationibus quantumuis absurdis accommodant seruire faciunt qui per AntichristuÌ„ designari volunt non vnum hominem sed plurimorum seriem c. And presently Apud Catholicos non est regula Lesbia quia est animata vero nimirum sensu qui contrarijs placitis aptari nequit Among Catholikes saith Lessius the scripture is not a lesbie rule because it is animated with true sense which cannot be applyed to contrarie opinions By which wordes it is euident that this author is mightely wronged being he hath the verye negatiue proposition to that is imposed vpon him In the citation of Pighius Sir Humfrey ought to haue continued his rehearsal from the beginning of his wordes to the end of the period of the authors whole passage then it would haue appeared plainelie howe falselie he is accused For so he discourseth But because saith he no place of scripture is so plaine or open as it can defend itselte from the iniurie of the heretikes who adulterate depraue detort it to their owne sense for they as one no lesse truelie then merrilie hath sayd are euen as a nose of wax which doth easilie suffer it selfe to be fashioned drawne this way that way which way thou wilst like a certaine leaden rule vsed in the buildings of Lesbos which is not harde to be accomodated to what you will there must be a line ioyned vnto it such a one as is not as flexible as it selfe but firme stiffe I say that pillar that firmament of Catholike trueth that is the common sense sentence of the Church then wee shall be certaine sure of the true vnderstanding of the scriptures if it be consonant in all things to her which as she giues Canonicall authoritie to the scriptures so is she truly the Lydius Lapis or touche stone of the true Orthodox interpretation of the same c. Pighius l. 3. Hierarc c. 3. Thus farre Pighius Where he puts also for his marginall note Scriptures ab haereticorum vi iniuria se prorsus vindicare non posse That is the scriptures can not vendicate or free them selues from the violence iniurie of heretikes By which note alone if his wordes in the text were not so plaine as they bee yet is it clearer then the leight that the comparisons which Pighius vseth be not applyed by him to the scriptures absolutelie but onelie as considered according to their bare caracters letter as they are subiect to be corrupted by false interpretations neither is he who vsed such speeches onelie with relation to the abusers of scripture more guiltie of iniurious proceeding against the scriptures them selues as truelie they are the worde of God then those are esteemed to be iniurious to the writings of S. Thomas Aristotle who by reason they are expounded in coÌ„trarie senses occasioned by their obscuritie affirme their expositors make them a nose of wax or compare them to some such other flexible matter mierly in that respect And conformable to this also which wee haue said because the Romanists know by experience how falselie the misreformers vse to deale in their citations as partelie hath been conuinced in diuers places of this censure therefore not for anie other cause doe they some tymes if they cite the Fathers iustelie reiect them as by them corrupted or falselie cited And so if they cite Berengarius the waldenses they iustelie reiect them as heretikes If they cite reformers for Romanists they iustely reiect them for none of theirs If they cite Catholike authours impertinentlie corruptedlie or in a false sense they iustelie reiected them as abused by them so remit them to the Censurers purgatorie If they cite scriptures either falselie translated by addition or detraction or falselie interpreted or falsified they iustelie reiect them as imperfect as made by them a couerture for theeues an officine or shop of heretikes And yet notobstanding all this it is manifest both by an expresse decree which the Councell of Trent made in the fourth ses against the profaners of the sacred scriptures Decret de edit vsu sacrorum l. vers fin as also by some ceremonies of the Masse it selfe that the Romanists giue farre greater reuerence euerie way vnto them without comparison then the Reformers And the same I say of the ancient Fathers whoÌ„ the Romanists as it is well knowne respect so much that they accounte it plaine temeritie in anie writer to teach anie doctrine contrarie to the common consent of them Whereas one the contrarie there is nothing more ordinarie among the writers of the misreformed Churches theÌ„ to reiect the authoritie of the ancient Fathers or at the least to vilifie them speake contemptuouslie of them as diuers of their workes doe testifie But for all this Sir Humfrey is still harping vpon that
aboute the yeare 996 neuerthelesse in two seuerall respects he proceedes most deceitefully and quite contrarie to common honestie and reason First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the reall presence and transsubstantiation to the said homilie secondly because in his rehearsall of the tenor of the same he leueth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proofe of both those points of the Catholique faith in it alledged by the author which craftie and vulpine trickes of Fox with which and manie others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes as it appeares seemed soe shamefull that his successor the late diuulger of the same homilie was ashamed to imitate him yea and not obstanding he was bounde vnder paine of losse of the labor of his translation and publication of that worke which otherwile he well considered would haue ben in vaine to taxe the said miracles of fiction as he did in a marginall note yet was he not soe impudent nor frontlesse as to raze thē quite out of the copie inexcusable deceipt in Fox And how be it I cā not denye but ther is a great difference belweene these twoe actions yet must they giue me licence to tell them that neither of them both is cleare of ill proceeding the one being guiltie of plaine imposture the other of plaine temeritie For supposing they would venture to make vse of the homilie for the aduantage of their denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation for all that they ought to haue taken it as they founde it for better or for worse not goe a boute to pick out what they finde for their purpose and cast a may the rest like such vnreasonable caterers as will needes buye flesh without bones And in deed those twoe bones that is those twoe most patēt cleare miracles by which both the reall presēce of the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ar manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our tymes were too harde for old Father Foxs teeth to chewe or for his stomake to disgeast therfore doubtlesse he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte But these sycophants as they deale with the scriptures them selues soe they deale with ancient authorities testimonies lib. de bono person c. 11. Suo quidem priuilegione dicam sacrilegio vtquod volunt accipiant quod nolunt reijciant as S. Augustin said of the Manichies Againe concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric ther is yet more discorde among our aduersaries For the publisher of them and the homilie aboue mentioned in his preface vnto them affirmes ther were certaines lines rare zout of a booke extant in the librarie of worceter which lines saith he which contained the cheefe point of cōtrouersie that is as he supposeth against the reall presence and transsubstantiation were taken out of twoe Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin But Doctor Iames and Sir Humfrey tell vs that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts Colledge in Cambrige yet there to be seene And wheras the author of the publication saith that the lines razed ar to be restored by twoe other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the librarie of Exceter contrarily D. Iames tolleth vs they ar to be restored not by anie latin copies but by certaine Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to haue ben in the publike librarie of Oxon when he writ his booke which was the yeare 1611. Besydes this the same Iames out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirmes to haue ben thus mangled and torne was to wulfstan Archbishop of yorke and hath for title de consuetudine Monachorum wheras yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new founde writings intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monkes Egneshemensibus fratribus to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham Which iarres I confesse I am soe vnable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these mens reportes to be false and counterfet Especially considering that Iames affirmes the latin Epistle soe razed as they reporte to haue ben directed by Alfric to that wulstan whoe was Archbishop of yorke aboute the yeare 954. wher as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings ar contained in his prefate to the same saith that this Alfric to whome he attributes them was equall to Alfric Archbishop of Canterburie which he alsoe affirmes to haue ben in that seat six yeares before that wulstan to whome Alfric's Epistle was writen was Archbishop of yoke soe that the one reportes this Epistle to haue ben wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops among which is Godwins doe testifye soe long a space of tyme to haue passed betweixt their standings as it is from the yeare 955. and 1003. soe that these twoe relators drawe back warde and fore ward like twoe ill match asses More ouer the foresaid publisher will needs haue Alfric the supposed author the homilie and epistles to haue ben a distinct man from that Alfric whoe was Archbishop of Canterburie wheras neuershelesse Iohn Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the seuerall workes of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterburie maketh noe mention of anie other writers of that name but of him onely neither doth he put anie epistle among his writings but onely one intituled de consuetudine Monachorum of the māner or custome of monkes which subiect how farre it disagreth frō the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation I leaue to the iudgement of the reader to consider In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first that if it were true as our aduersaries pretend that in the foresaid writings ther weere anie thing contained contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation yet haue I cōuinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them neither could anie such doctrine haue ben publikely maintained in the Church of England in or aboute his dayes But what soeuer doctrine was then published and tought in our countrie was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I haue manifestly declared Secondly Althou I am not able to iudge determinately whoe might be author of those writings because I haue noe meanes to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our aduersaries neuerthelesse I persuade my selfe they were writ by some Romane catholique author soe that taken in their innocencie and prime puritie and piously interpreted they containe no vnsounde or erroneous doctrine but rather expresse testimonie and proofes of diuers points controuersed
Romanists touching the inconueniences which that libertie which the Nouellists haue giuen to the common people in reading the scriptures hath caused in the Christian world in these our present times as that to permitt euerie ignorant man or woman without distinction or order to read them is to cast pearles before hogges the like which because thy are both impertinent in this place as also for that I haue in parte ansered them in my censure I omit to reherse them Period 13. alibi that which in like manner I doe for the same reason in the rest of the authors which the knight citeth in this section onelie aduertising the reader that besides that they make not to the purpose diuers of them are by him corruptedlie alleaged mangled either in wordes or sense or rather both in words sense By way page as particularlie may appeere in the citation of Sanders whome our aduersarie affirmes to say that it is little better then heresie to translate the scriptures Haeresi◅ esse si quis dicat esse necessariū vis m◅ Haer. 191. yet Sanders onelie sayth that it is an heresie if one doe affirme it is necessarie for scriptures to be translated into vulgar tongues as the same words which Sir Humfrey cites doe testifie He also abuseth Acosta whome he cites lib. 2. de Christo reuel cap. 2. yet Acosta speakes note a word of reading scriptures in vulgar language much lesse affirmes that much profit may redound to the lay people by reading them in these our daies especiallie in that manner as the knight falselie alleageth who if he will proue his intent must needes speake in that sense when he imposeth vpon that author the approbation of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue In this fashion he also couseneth his reader in his citation of S. Hierome affirming that in his epistle to Paulinus he sayth that the booke of Genesis is most plaine for euerie mans vnderstanding whereas S. Hierome rehearsing seuerallie all the parts of scripture with an intent to shewe breiflie what they containe what meanes is required to the true vnderstanding of them particularlie signifying to Paulinus that he would haue him vnderstand that he cannot vndertake the worke or interprise of reading scriptures without a master putteth the booke of Genesis firste in order as it lyeth in the Bible sayeing thus videlicet manifesta est Genesis meaning not that the contents of the booke are manifest easie to be vnderstood as Sir Humfrey doth most falselie affirme him to say hut onelie affirming that in the whole number of the bookes of scripture the Genesis is manifestlie knowne to be one the firste of the same number for which reason he doth in like manner consequentlie adde of the two bookes following saying presentlie after patet Exodus in promptu est leuiticus c. By which particulars the true sense of S. Hierome doth so plainelie appeere to make nothing for our aduersaries purpose that we may iustlie wonder how he could haue the face to peruert detort it in so shamelesse a fashion And by such trickes fraudes as this now then dropping a lye or two by the way as that the Romish Preistes agree like Pilate Herod both to the condemnation of Christe his word that it is a crime worthie the Inquisition for the people to haue a Bible the like still dissembling the true state of the question which is not whether the laytie can lawfullie read the scriptures absolutelie but whether they can read them commonlie without licence that in vulgar tongues it being euer supposed that in Latine Greeke or Hebrew anie one that can may reade them by those fraudes I say such like insincere dealing the knight patches vp this peece of his by way for his priuate spirit to walke in where I leaue him to his melancholie contemplations passe forward to the next matter Sec. 3. The third section is about the interpretation of scripture in which question Sir Humfrey affirmes that according to the iudgment of the ancient Fathers the Bible is the sole Iudge of controuersies Quod si nō poteris assiduitate lectionis inuenire quod dicitur accede ad sapientiorem vade ad Doctorem Chrysost hom 3. de Laz. interpreter of it selfe For this his affirmation he cites diuers places out of S. Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome but in this he sheweth verie small iudgment in the reading vnderstanding of the ancient Doctors For it is cleere to anie cleere wit that these holie Fathers onelie speake by way of instruction to such onelie as for their owne priuate profit comfort vnderstanding read interpret scriptures as they read them to themselues not as publike Iudges or deciders of doubs in faith or manners And in this sense onelie not otherwise the foresaid Fathers proceede excepting the place of S. Augustin cited out of his confessiōs which yet is to a differēt purpose from this we here treate as in an other place I will declare perhaps to the end they might more easlie persuade such as in their time were slowe ought to haue binne more diligent by reason of their profession qualitie capacitie to retire cohibit themselues from the accustomed vanities of those dayes applie themselues to that holie wholesome exercise And yet more then this except Sir Humfrey will adde to the Fathers sentences the worde sole as his Father Luther did to the text of S. Paul nay the word controuersie also he will neuer iustifie by their authoritie his vast proposition viz that scripture is the sole Iudge interpreter of itselfe Optatus speake of one particular case for which the scriptures were plaine cleere not in generall nor yet doth either he or Pope Clement speake of sole scriptures but of scriptures interpreted according to the traditionarie current sense of the successiue Catholike Church or cheefe pastors for the time present Euangelio non crederē nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas tom 7. contr ep fund Quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritatē quaestionis Ecclesiam de illa consulat c. Lib. 1. cōt Cresc cap. 33. not of particular Doctors of priuate spirits in which distinction consisteth the mayne difference betwixt the Romanists the Reformers in this points which if you Sir Humfrey had duelie pondered considered how much authoritie the ancient Fathers particularlie sainct Augustine commonlie attributes to the Church in expounding scripture determining controuersies I persuade my selfe you would neuer haue had the face eyther to denie that euer the ancient Fathers made ansere to the Heretikes of their tymes that they must heere the Church or that their Church was that Catholike Church which is the sole iudge of Controuersies the viue or liue interpreter of scriptures which they ought to heere in all doubtfull cases obscure or
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance
alteration for that to omit other authorities of ancient Fathers of the same nature sainct Chrysostome who liued in the beginning of the fouerth age of Christian religion vseth the same manner of phrase if not playner Com. in c. 2. Epist 2. ad Thes sayeing that it doth appeere that the Apostles did not deliuer all by epistles but manie things without writing but as well these as those deserue the same faith The which is not onelie as much as can be expressed for the authoritie of traditions but also a more playne commendable testimonie then anie Romanist euer vttered concerning the same From whence the reader may deduce that the knight is heere also out of the right way of the primitiue Church in which he runneth forward till the verie end of his section like a man ouer heated breatheth out nothing but abuses of diuerse moderne diuines which he citeth in a cauilling captious sort peruerts their true sense meaning in all or most places by him alleaged Sec. 8. In the eight section he pretends to proue that the traditions of the Roman Church were vnknowne to the Greeke Church that they want vniuersalitie antiquitie succession but on the contrarie that faith which the reformed Churches maintaine at this day is the same in substance which the Apostles published in Greece therefore hath antiquitie vniuersalitie succession And this is the substance of his section if anie substance it hath But in truth he proueth his position with such mediums that I am scarce willing to relate them for losse of time the greatest part of his proofes being but eyther his owne bare false affirmations or onelie friuolous argumēts long since ansered destroyed by Bellarmin and other Romanists partlie also by my selfe in my Censure or else they are onelie authorities drawne from his owne brothers both in religion lyeing as from Illiricus whome Bellarmine doth cleerlie discouer to haue binne most expert in that black art or from other professed enimies of the Roman Church as Nylus other Grecian Scismatikes adding also the resistance or disclame of some Grecians in different occasions heere there a without doubt of his owne citing diuers authors vnfaithfullie for his owne aduantage contrarie to their meaning especiallie Bellarmine whome he abuseth in diuers places partelie by peruerting his sense partlie by mangling his sentences as lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 16. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 30. lib. 1. de Sanct. beatid cap. 19. mingling also some vntruthes as that most of the Greeke Latin Fathers did hould that the faithfull till the resurrection doe not attaine to the beatificall vision of God c. And now let the prudent reader iudge whether Sir Humfrey doth proceed sollidlie or rather not most absurdlie weaklie in that he goeth about to eleuate the antiquitie vniuersalitie succssion of the Roman faith eyther in generall or particular points by virtue of a scattered companie of moderne Grecians who in those matters they dissent from vs contrarie to the doctrine of their most ancient renowned auncestors haue no more authoritie then the pretended reformers themselues nay especiallie considering them to be of a religion which agrees neyther intirelie with ours yet much lesse with theirs what a madnesse is it in the knight to make vse of their authoritie eyther to infringe the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of the Roman doctrine or for confirmation of his owne Dicunt Armeni in Christo Domino vnam naturam esse vnam voluntatem vnamque operationē Aub. Mir. not Episc p. 43. Hodie Aethiopes baptisantur circumciduntur Idem p. 54. Neyther is Sir Humfrey thou ' most repugnant to the knowne truth content to say that the Greeke Church hath continued the truth of his doctrine in all ages but he also addeth further that if we looke beyond Luther we shall easilie discerne that the Muscouites Armenians Egiptians Ethiopians did teach their reformed doctrine euen from the Apostles time till now By which porticulars I doubt not but the reader may perceaue euen without a comentarie how ridiculous he makes himselfe his Religion to what streits this mā was put how impossible it is for him to auoyde the by way in the proofe of his antiquitie vniuersalitie succession who by his owne confession was forced to fetch his faith from such by places deuious regions where yet he hath not found it but remaineth still in his owne vnquoth English by way The nynth section pretendeth to proue that the scriptures are a certayne safe euident way to saluation traditions a by way In which section Sir Humfrey beginneth with a large homelie about the certaintie safetie of scriptures which two wordes because he peraduenture dreamed the night before he writ this that he had seene them in the scripture the one in the firste of S. Luke 4. the other Philip. 3.1 he assured himselfe he had thrust the Papists frō the wall at the first push But alas for pittie his dreame proued so false that when he awaked he found himselfe in the channell for in neyther of those places are those wordes found nay nor yet the sense which he intendeth heere which being no other then that onelie scriptures no tradition is to be followed in anie matter of faith or manners neyther those two places of scripture nor anie other testimonie that he bringeth eyther out of anie scripture or Fathers doth proue his peremptorie position but onelie shewe that all scriptures are profitable to instruct a man in all good workes to the end he may be perfect moreouer that the scriptures be as Bellarmine sayth a most certaine most safe rule of faith yet that they be the sole or onelie certaine safe rule neyther Bellarmine nor anie other Romanist nor yet anie proofe or testimonie which the knight produceth doth eyther teach or testifie It is true Sir Humfrey alleageth diuers authors but all according to his accustomed manner that is neyther much to the purpose nor yet verie faithfullie the testimonies of those eyther impertinētlie produced or alreadie cleared by Bellarmine other Controuertists to containe nothing contrarie to the Roman doctrine in this particular or else such obscure grolles as neyther his predecessors as I thinke did euer cite by reason of their smale authoritie nor are they of that moment that they deserue anie ansere at all as Waltram Fauorinus which at the leaste by reason of the ill vse he maketh of thē serue the knight for nothing more then to leade him out of the common path of the euerduring constant Church as a sure guide which according to the scriptures cannot faile euen by the power of hell into a dangerous diuerticle of scriptures expounded by deductions proceeding from the priuate spirit of particular men which is all he concludes in this his section Sec. 10. From hence
Sir Humfrey passeth to another matter that is to the testimonies of the ancient fathers where he chargeth the Romanists that they eyther openly reiect them or secretly decline their authority by euasions in particular pointes This is the tenth section a great part of which is repeated out of his firste booke ansered by me in my censure He makes a large preamble touching the clayme the Romanists make to the ancient fathers as patrons of their doctrine as if they did arrogate that which is not their owne but the discourse is very idle mutatis mudandis may be verie iustely verified of the knight his predecessors especiallie Iewell Plessis who both of them were the greatest braggars in that kind that euer were yet none so shamelesse in corrupting the Fathers workes abusing their sense as themselues The rest of this section is verie meane stuffe consisting of captious constructions of the sayeings of some Romanists contorting them to this matter as if they did disesteeme or reiect the ancient Fathers authoritie which is impossible to be true as is manifestlie conuinced by the continuall vse they make of them much more then the Nouellists as it is well knowne to the world And the truth is that the Romanists onelie modestlie confesse especiallie when they are vrged to it by the clamours of the sectaries that some of the Fathers in their single opinions or in such cases as they did not all consent together did sometimes perhapps fall into some erroneous point of doctrine that they are not alwayes in euerie point to be followed in their expositions of scriptures or otherwise in matters nothing concerning the controuersies of these tymes But onelie when they all agree in matters of faith or by graunting that in pointes of practise for example about the Communion in one kinde or priuate Masse they are not all in all matters expreslie for them How beit they knowe they neither are against them all things considered Which if it be duelie pondered is no inconuenience at all in regard that these things such others be mutable according to the diuersitie of times persons consequentlie might be otherwise thē by practised thē by vs. Neyther doe the Romanists when they affirme the Fathers to be for them teach as the knight doth falselie deceitfullie suppose that all the Fathers in euerie point of faith be it transubstantiation or anie other are positiuelie for them but onelie that the whole streame nay nor anie part of them is positiuelie against them in anie such doctrine that in the most pointes they are expresselie wholie for them against the reformers in all Pag. 290. Out of which the reader may collect how impudently the kinght doth belye the foresaid Romanists when he affirmeth that they are reputed no good Catholikes by their owne tenets that teach not contrary to the vniforme consent of Fathers especiallie considering that he himselfe hath already related how the same Romanists take an expresse oath to follow that consent Sect. 4. init And by this it may in like fashion be easilye perceaued how little credit this man deserues when he accuseth his aduersaries of citation of counterfeit authors wheras he himselfe doth deale so vniustly in that nature especially with Bellarmine that he doth not onely mutilate his wordes but also citeth that which is not to be found as by way of example you may see page 290. where he affirmes Bellarmine to professe that they are not to be numbred among Catholiques that thinke the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne for hauing deligently passed ouer two seuerall times the 15. chap. of the 4. booke de amiss grat which is that same Sir Humfrey citeth I find no such sentence nor words in it but rather the quite contrary doctrine as by his owne words in my margen related clerely appeares Neque desunt qui impudenter affirment ab Ecclesia Romanae defendi cōceptionem immaculatam Virginis Mariae tanquam articulum fidei Bell. loco cit neither is it lesse plainly false which he affirmeth for the conclusion of this section to wit that Bellarmine the Romanists in generall some times condemne the Fathers as counterfeit some times they purge them as if they were full of corruptions that according to seuerall occasions they haue their seuerall deuices to produce them or auoyd them at their pleasure yea that they cōfessing thē to be counterfeit yet produce them for their doctrine all which particulars are so farre from truth that they cry shame on the author so much the more in regard that he his brothers are not a little guiltie in this busines but doe daily offend in the same kinde as by many instances might be proued particularly in that one for example of the Imperfect which passing vnder the name of S. Chrisostome is conuinced by Bellarmine others not to be his in regard it houldeth the Homousians for heretikes yet is it commonly cited by our aduersaries euen by Sir Humfrey himself in diuers places of his workes in which they verifie most fitly that of the Apostle Rom. 2.21 in that while they preach to others that they must not steale they steale themselues Neyther yet doe any of the testimonyes which the kinght produceth for his accusation of Bellarmine in this nature proue his intent nor any thing more then that both Bellarmine other Romanists doe indeed some times produce such authors in fauour of their doctrine as are not by all Romanists held to be of certaine vndoubted authority or at the least not certainly iudged to be the workes of those authors whose names they beare thou ' otherwise althose who cite them hold them for workes of ancient standing not counterfeit at least in the substance of theie authority as the knight doth counterfeitly indeuore to perswade his reader nay Bellarmine whome the knight particularly taxeth in this behalf showeth himself so iust sincere in this point that he is not content eyther alwayes or for the most parte to aduertise the reader when he cites doubtfull authors in his tomes of controuersies but also to take away all occasion of scruple in himself of calumniation in others he hath made a particular censure of such authors as are in anie sort held for doubtfull or Apochriphal or otherwise called in question And so to conclude this the reader may see by what indirect courses Sir Humfrey huddles vp this parte of his by-way for himself freinds to spend their tyme in Sec. 11. In his eleauenth section he indeuoureth to proue that the substantiall pointes of the Romane faith as they are now receiued taught by the Church of Rome were neuer taught by the primitiue Church nor receiued by the ancient Fathers these are the contents of the section but it containes so little substance that we may trulie say it stands onelie for a
Cipher to increase the number He begins with a great commendation of the scriptures because he would seeme to say some thing plausible to the common people but I knowe none make lesse estimation of thē in reallitie then he his consorts who tye them like a nose to the grindestone to the interpretation of those priuate spirits who haue walked with in the compasse of a hundred yeeres or little more rather then to the consent of all succeeding ages since they firste were penned And I pray you what is this preamble to the purpose of prouing the Roman faith not to haue binne taught by the ancient Fathers or the primitiue Church the knight produceth certaine places out of sainct Augustine Ambrose to proue that they preferred scriptures before the writings of the Fathers that they appealed from them to scriptures but what Romanist in the world denyeth that the scriptures haue incomparable preheminence aboue all other writings whatsoeuer or what Roman Catholike doth not willinglie graunt that when the scriptures are plaine the doctrine of the Fathers obscure or doubtfull prouocation from them to the scriptures is rightlie made But that euen in such cases as the Fathers doe vniformlie agree in matter of faith or generallie receaued practise of the Church it is vsuall lawfull to appeale from them to scriptures especiallie when they are not plaine manifest this I say neyther those holie Fathers produced by the knight did euer teach neyther can anie reason be found to proue it but rather it is cleerlie against all reason as opening the by-way to all sortes of heresie And if Sir Humfrey when he read S. Augustine contra Crescon had but passed one other step forward he might haue found that famous Father not to appeale to scripture onelie but also to the authoritie of the Church since that presentlie after he had sayd that he held not sainct Cyprians epistle for Canonicall but examined it by Canonicall scripture which are the words our aduersarie cites he addes that with a great emphasis sayeing Non accipio inquam I say I doe not receaue that which S. Cyprian holdeth of rebaptization because the Church doth not receaue it for which blessed sainct Cyprian shed his bloud By which the reader may plainelie perceiue that one as it were the cheife motiue which sainct Augustine had to reiect the doctrine of rebaptization was not the sole authoritie of the scripture as not being in that case so cleere as to conuince S. Cyprian but he struck the last stroake by force of the authoritie of the Catholike Church And thus you see Sir Humfrey is still out of the way of the Fathers which he himselfe citeth if they be ritelie vnderstood followeth his owne crooked tract relating the particular pointes of the Roman doctrine vnfaithfullie as he vseth to doe making manie conditionall promises to subscribe in case the ancient Fathers be found for vs but remitting the performance to his next opportunitie which is so farre to seeke that I assure my selfe he will neuer finde it Sec. 12. In his twelfth section he comes to particulars contending that S. Augustine is reiected by the Romanists in the seuerall pointes in which he agreeth Page 317. as he supposeth with the Reformers I expected Sir Humfrey would haue performed the large promise which he made in his precedent section sayeing he dares confidentlie auowe that in all fundamentall pointes of difference the Romanists eyther want antiquitie to supplie their firste ages or vniuersalitie to make good the consent of Christian Churches or vnitie of opinions to proue their Trent articles of beleife but in steed of prouing this he goeth about the bush euading the difficultie which he found impossible for himselfe to ouercome he onelie indeuoures to persuade his reader that according to the Romanists owne confessions sainct Augustine is wholelie for the presumed reformers doctrine for proofe of which he produceth diuers instances out of Roman diuines but effecteth nothing in regard that althou ' it is true that some of the Romanists confesse that S. Augustine did dissent from their opinions partlie in the interpretation of some certaine passages of scripture partlie in some other particulars yet none of them confesse that in anie mayne point of religion or faith euen those which haue binne declared by the late Councell of Trent that holie Doctor dissenteth from them in this consists the equiuocation which togeather with some vntruthes which he vttereth as when he affirmes that those which he rehearses heere be cheife points in question betwixt vs such like is the by-way in which his worship walketh with great grauitie all the lenght of this section Sec. 13. In his next ensueing section which is the 13. in number he pretends that S. Gregorie who sent S. Augustine the monke into England to preach the Christian faith is directlie opposite to the Roman religion in the mayne pointes of faith By the contents of this section it appeeres that the knight is as fitte to write matters of diuinitie as an asse is fitte to play on the fiddle he makes such fiddling worke as one may plainlie perceiue that eyther he doth not vnderstand the Fathers other Catholike authors that write in Latin or that passion malice quite obfuscate his witts when he reades them In his 350. page he affirmes that in the vndoubted writings of Gregorie there will be found few or no substantiall pointes which are not agreable to the tenets of their Church altogether different from the Roman this he sayth but in stead of proofe comming to particulars he committs diuers palpable fraudes for firste whereas he professeth to compare the doctrine of Tridentine Councell his owne with the doctrine of sainct Gregorie in lieu of that he cites the doctrine of Bellarmine the notes vpon the Rhemes testament the expurgatorie Index which altho' they be authenticall Catholike authors yet are they not rules of the Roman faith Neither yet doth our aduersarie conuince them to be repugnant to sainct Gregories true meaning in anie one point of faith And I earnestlie wish I had time place to discouer to the reader the egregious fraude the knight hath vsed in his trāslation interpretation of this holie Fathers wordes touching the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist Greg. in 6. ps poenit for by this onelie passage he might frame a coniecture of the rest Secondlie wheras our aduersarie treateth in this section of substantiall pointes of faith yet some of the particulars in which he exemplifies are not substantiall points of faith but rather of manners which according to diuersitie of times may alter change as priuate Masse the double Communion reading of scriptures in vulgar language in which there is a mayne difference from matters of faith which can neuer varie Thirdlie of all the pointes which he rehearseth being all as I take it 9. in number There
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the
operation effect of the Sacraments depend cheiflie principallie vpon the institution of Christe yet they say withall that both for the securitie of the consciences comfort of the receauers c. The Preist must haue a sincere intention to minister the Sacrament not in ieast as Luther some other sectaries doe teach this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the Reformers teach that onelie the instistitution of Christe is sufficient the Preists sincere intention not required this is an vncertaine by-way Nintly the Romanists teach that Christe is our onelie mediatour of redemption who onelie of himself by his owne power knoweth the secrets of our hartes yet withall they say that his Saintes in heauen who in by him doe assuredlie knowe the secrets of our hartes in such things especiallie as cōcerne the good of our soules are our mediatours of intercession by offering our vnworthie prayers to God this is a certaintie safe way to saluation But the reformers calle vpon Christe onelie exclude neglect his saintes seruants whome neuerthelesse he himselfe doth promise to honore in heauen condemning also for impious sacrilegions the saintes intercession for sinners which notwithstanding he doth not condemne for such in anie parte of holie scripture this is an vncertaine by-way Tenthly the Romanists teach we ought to adore Christes bodie present in heauen where he sits on the right hand of his diuine Father yet withall they say it is lawfull yea we ought to adore him whersoeuer he is particularlie in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach that the bodie of Christe ought not to be adored in the Eucharist but onelie in heauen this is an vncertaine by-way Eleauenthly the Romanists as the word of God instructs them confesse themselues to be vnprofitable seruants in regarde neyther they nor their actions bring anie profitte to God who hath no need of anie thing yet they say withall that no man liuing can be iustified by his owne merits that is such merites as proceed purelie from his owne naturall forces actions more then this that all those who expect saluation must beleiue in Christe with a liuelie faith wholely relie vpon his meritts satisfaction as vpon the proper principall cause of their saluation yet they say besides this that altho' they may not relie vpon their owne merits or the satisfactions of the saintes alone neuerthelesse they may vse both the satisfaction of saintes their owne merits as a meanes to saluation by virtue application of the merits satisfaction of Christes passion also that they can by the grace assistance of God obserue his commandements yea by virtue of the same diuine grace performe some workes of supererogation or not commanded by precept of God but counselled by his aduise this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach they are vnprofitable seruants which I confesse that in deed they are both to God his Church as euer were anie in the world that no mans good workes altho' they proceed from the speciall grace of God can in anie sort iustifie him before God that euerie Christian must so wholie relie vpon the merites of Christe that he beleiue also that no man can haue anie of his owne euen by the power grace of God that he is bound to expect hope for saluation without anie such workes or merites meerlie by a sole bare faith that his sinnes are remitted in Iesus Christe this is an vncertaine by-way Heere you see a plaine confrontment of diuers particular pointes of controuersie betwixt the Romanists the reformers by way of affirmation negation because I knowe that my aduersarie I are not agreed of a Iudge of our cause I for for my part remit my selfe to the indifferent reader as our onelie vmpiere to determine of the matter not onelie for as much as concernes the contents of this particular section but also of the whole worke who if he consider with due ponderation the proceedings of both parties compare the sincere plaine dealing which I haue vsed with the insincere and double dealing of my aduersarie who hath so perseuered in his indirect courses that euen in the end conclusion of his worke he hath practised no smale partiallitie and fraude in the rehearsall of the doctrine of the Roman Church as particularlie where he affirmes that the Romanists teach that diuers traditions of faith and manners whereof there is no ground nor euidence in the scripture are to be reeeaued with equall reuerence and respect with the scriptures themselues and that they relie partelie vpon their owne merites and satisfaction of Saintes for their saluation and the like I say if the iudicious and vnpartiall reader duelie ponder all the particulars I doubt not but he will easilie discerne the house of truth and safe way to saluation to be where he findes honestie and plainenes and in the contrarie the house of falsitie the by-way where he findes tricks cousinage And therfore the more to facilitate rectifie his iudgment in the businesse I will reduce the whole argument of the knightes booke to a forme of sylogisme in this manner That Religion is a by-way leading the weake vnstable into dangerous pathes of error which is founded vppon coulourable showes of Apochriphall scriptures vnwriten traditious doubt full Fathers ambiguous Councells and pretended Catholique Church But the religion of the Church of Rome is founded vppon colourable showes of apochriphal scriptures vnwritten traditions doubtful fathers ambiguous Councels pretended Catholique Church Therfore the relgiō of the Romā Church is a by-way leading the weake vnstable in to the dangerous pathes of error Now the minor of this sylogisme in which the whole force of the conclusion and by consequence the whole scope and authoritie of the worke depēdes not onely hauing binne in the discourse of my anseere to euerie seuerall section disproued for false counterfeit but alsoe more appeare to be such ex ipsis terminis euen of it selfe by the termes propositions of which it consists to all such as shall consider it with due attention I persuade my selfe the iuditious reader will presently perceaue determine with him selfe that the author of the worke hath quite fayled of his proiect that by composing a by path with a sinister intention to father it Falsely vppon his aduersaryes he hath in stead of that onely framed an ingen for his owne torment And thus hauing attayned not onely to an accomplishment of myne owne desires in finishing my labours but also in some sorte to a satisfaction of the request of my aduersary in regard that at the least in showe as I perceaue by the conclusion of his preface he desireth nothing more then
prisci moris which signifyes the custome of celibate to haue ben no newe lawe as he would falsely persuade hir reader but established in ancient tymes And more then this he foysteth in to his translation the worde necessarie in steed of flagitare videntur And thus like a bungling boteher he patcheth togither those vncertainties of Cassander to make himselfe and others a deceitfull safegarde of greater confort and benefit for the soule which he erroneously supposeth rather to be in his misreformed faith them in the Romish And now how vnfaithfull weake pore proceeding of Sir Humfrey this appeares to be let the indicious reader consider The knigh moreouer traduceth Bellarmin in the preface to his booke de Romano Pont. translating in euerie place for Graeci the Greeke Fathers as if the Cardinall did confesse that the ancient and most famous Greeke Fathers to wit S. Chrysostome S. Basil Epiphanius and others did impugne and resiste the supremacie of the Bishop of Romane Wheras it is plaine Bellarmin meaneth onely such Grecians as sate in the Councell of Calcedon whoe frandulently defined in absence of the Popes legates that the Patriarch of Constantinople is soe the second after the Roman Bishop as that yet he hath equall priuiledges whence Sir Humfrey will needs inferre that the supremacie of the Pope wantes succession as if the Popes resistance to this attempte of vsurpation in those Grecians were sufficient to exstinguish a true and estblished succession of all former tymes In his page 104. of the deuia touching Salmeron the knight falsely affirmes out of chamier that he speakes in the person of the Grecians when he vttereth those wordes For as much as the benedictton of the lord is not fuperfluous c. For Salmeron neither mentions Grecians nor Latinists but onely argues for the second opinion which he putteth of those which seeme to hould that Christ did not consecrate his bodie and bloud with those wordes This is my bodie But whose soeuer those wordes bee the matter is not great yet certaine it is that Sir Humfrey dealeth falsely and deceitfully in that he produceth them and Salmeron to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists whenas neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists When as neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to anie other end but onely to confirme the opinion of such as hould that out Sauior did not consecrate with those wordes This is my bodie Howbeit both he and they agree most vniformely in that how soeuer Christ him selfe did whose power being infinite was not tyed to anie wordes at all for the effecting that which he intended no more then he was in the operation of miracles particularly in the miraculous transsubstantiation of water in to wine in the mariage feast of Cana yet Preists whoe are but his substitutes or instruments in that sacred action doe vndoubtedly consecrate with those determinate wordes This is my bodie in which all Romanists yea Grecians excepting some moderne Grecians whoe adde some other deprecatorie wordes doe consent vnanimously accorde Wher vpon Salmeron before he comes to rehearse opinions touching that point whether Christ him selfe did consecrate with these formall wordes saith plainely Illud igitur tanquam certum constitutum est apud omnes hanc fuisse nobis formam consecrationis praescriptam iure diuino institutam ac nobis traditam Which wordes sufficiently declare that there is no incertaintie among the Romanists aboute the foresaid wordes of consecration Nay if ther were that incertaintie among diuines aboute the forme of the Eucharist which Sir Humfrey pretendeth yet doth it not follow that the Doctrine of transsubstantiation is vncertaine supposing that both Salmerō all the same diuines agree that the bread and wine are truely transsubstantiated or turned in to the bodie bloud of Christ consequently this author is impertinently alledged as hauing nothing for the knights purpose Besydes that parte of the wordes which he cites out of Salmeron whether they be the Grecians or not they include clearely the doctrine of transsubstantiation to wit those in particular when he graue it transmutation was alreadie made soe the vnwarie knight hath alledge this passage against him selfe For if the change of the bread wine was made before Christ gaue the Sacrament to his disciples the Romanists haue their desire intent that Christ did truely transsubstantiate the elements it importing little to this question by what meanes he performed his action Page 547. of his deuia the kinght corrupts Salmeron by a mangled relation false construction of his wordes which he produceth to proue that some Romanists particularly Salmeron hould the Popes iudgement infallible But how soeuer it be that some Roman diuines hould the Popes authoritie euen without a generall Councell infallible in determining controuersies in matters of faith others the contrarie which as Bellarmin noteth is no matter of faith Yet certaine it is that Salmeron is here abused by Sir Humfrey for that in this place cited what soeuer he doth in others he rather attributes all infallibilitie in resoluing declaring matters of controuersie cheefely to the assistance power of the holy spirit then either to the Pope or Church His wordes are these Neque haec sunt satis nisi accedat vnctio eruditio Spiritus Sancti quem Dominus mansurum nobiscum in aeternum qui in generalibus synodis in Christi Vicario Petri successore residens omnes incidentes quaestiones ortas de fide contronersias sua authoritate terminet atque absoluat Thus Salmeron prologom 9. can 1. Wher the reader may perceiue that the kinght hath either ignorantly or malitiously applyed the relatiue qui to the Pope which neuerthelesse is referred by Salmeron to the holy Gost As anie Grammer boy that vnderstands latin may eassely perceiue And yet blinde Sir Humfrey whoe not being yet a perfect Gramarian will needs playe the Doctor of diuinite englisheth rehearseth Salmerons wordes thus The lorde promised his Spirit to Christs Vicar the successor of Peter by his authoritie the determins all matters of faith Let the reader compare the english with the latin he will presently discouer the fraud S. Isidor Pelusiota writ the Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey page 630. to a monke named Zenon complaining vnto him of want of virtue corruption of maners in the Church in comparison of the primatiue tymes all which that holy man affirmes to proceed from dissention wickednesse or malice of these whoe gouerne especially of preists thou ' not of all but he hath not a worde of the Pope or of anie defect or of the
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
string that the Roman Church houlds the scriptures to be imperfect but I knowe none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diuers partes of them and condemning them for Apochripha in their consistoriall sessions by corrupting the text by false translations erroneous interpretations as I haue aboue declared And touching the Roman Church I haue alreadie tould him that he belyeth her For neither she here selfe nor anie of her members euer defended that tenet absolutelie that the scriptures are imperfect But onelie some Romanists affirme the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith yet they neuer say they are imperfect For one thing it is to be perfect in them selues an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith The first is absolutelie true maintained by all Romanists the second is but true secundum quid with restriction as before hath ben declared or as it is but one parte yet the cheefest the farre more perfect noble Wherefore the Romanists as the reader may perceiue hould both the scriptures Fathers for perfect campleit absolutelie speaking wher as the reformers whatsoeuer they say in wordes yet indeeds they doe mangle martyrize them most cruellie as a booke published by a reformed minister called the censure of the Fathers doth giue ouer plaine testimonie Censura Patrum And thus handled by thim I graunt the reformers may chalenge them for theirs but taking them in their compleit perfect latitude puritie the Romanists my iustelie say all myne in which action notwithstanding there is no police vsed to deceiue the ignorant as the reformers vse to doe but plaine dealing for their true instruction And to say the Romanists silence scriptures it is so manifest an vntruth as it needs no other confutation But by the lye Neyther doe they otherwise purge either them or anie learned writers but onelie or at the least cheefelie from such darnell as you enimies to the Crop of Christ vse to sowe by night in the feild of faith According to the sentence of the authour of the Impect Commentarie of S. Mathewe hom 44. speaking of hereticall Preists whose wordes altho' the knight world faine applie them against the Romanists yet they can not possible be so trulie fitlie accommodated to anie as to his owne ministers Bishops whose common knowne practice is by seueritie of lawes all fortes of punishment not by their bookes writings to musle the Romanists mouthes because to vse the wordes of the foresaid author they knowe that if the truth be once layd opē their Church shall be forsaken they from their Pontificall dignitie shall be brought downe to the basenesse of the people And now we see by the examen of this whole sectiō howe false Sir Humfreyes cardes haue proued how plainelie he hath lost the game notwithstanding all his iudling tricks counterfeit shuffling of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for anie matter of substance but onelie verball florishes to giue colour countenance to his fained calumnious accusations THE XIV PERIOD SIR Humfrey tells vs that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the cheefe points of controuersie I haue alreadie declared that the Romanists reiect not either true scriptures or Fathers nor yet anie other authours of the Roman Church but onelie as either corrupted by heretikes or els onelie where we finde them to haue some singular opinion or tenet against the vniforme doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners or Ecclesiasticall practice or discipline or els in some particular points not then sufficientlie declared determined by the Church when they did so vtter their opinions of which sorte of writers neuerthelesse there neuer were anie such either in number or qualitie of doctrine as could either make or marre the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Church in that nature And as for Bellarmin whome Sir Humfrey citeth in this section we are so farre from taking exceptions at anie thing that he euer writ published that we all hould him for a most faithfull diligent defender not onelie of the principall points of our faith but also of euerie one of them in particular of the whole Roman doctrine in so much that I accounte it no lesse then plaine madnesse in that man whoe shall offer to make vse of his testimonie for the contrarie knowing for certaine that if he be sincerelie alledged rightlie vnderstāded nothing can be founde in him for the aduerse parte And to the end that this may more plainely appeare I will breeflie examen those particular places which Sir Humfrey produceth for the contrarie First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as confessing the vncertainty of all the Trēt Sacramēts as the knight termeth thē because forsooth in his third booke of Iustification the 8. chap. he graunteth that none can be certaine by the certaintie of faith that he receiueth a true Sacrament in regard in depends vpon the intention of the minister But this testimonie I haue alreadie shewed to be delusorie it is wholie impertinent to the purpose for that the question aboute the necessitie of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith is no principall controuersie betwixt vs but rather meerelie incident Neyther yet can the reformers finde the contrarie position in anie place of scripture by that meanes to make it a point of faith for themselues Secondlie he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers denyall of transsubstantiation To which place I haue also ansered before it is not for this purpose in regarde there is no mention of anie denyall of the trueth of trassubstantiation or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point but onelie of an other incident question viz. whether transsubstantiation can be proued by expresse wordes of scripture And at least touching the maine point to omit the other as impertinent disagreable to the title of our aduersaries questiō which is of principal points of controuersie it is too cleare that Bellarmin defended the affirmatiue in terminis in plaine tearmes And so this is no such confession as Sir Humfrey seekes for in this place Besides that all Bellarmins confession is but one pore non est improbabile Thirdlie he citeth Bellarmins confession against priuate Masse lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. 10. But the latter place I haue examined before founde it corrupted by Sir Humfrey both in wordes sense neyther are the wordes sincerelie recited by omission of omnino sine declaratione Ecclesiae transposition of the text And here I further adde that neyther of the places is to this purpose because they proue no vnlawfulnesse or absolute imperfection in priuate Masses but onelie at the most their lesse lawfulnes their lesse